1 files changed, 191 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..872f86e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
+the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
+copies.
+
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+ -->
+
+
+ <a name="Why-Free-Software-Needs-Free-Documentation">
+ </a>
+ <h1 class="chapter">
+  9. Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation
+ </h1>
+ <a name="index-documentation-_0028see-also-both-FDL-and-manuals_0029-2">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-manuals-_0028see-also-manuals_002c-FDL_002c-and-documentation_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+  The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
+software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include
+in these systems. Many of our most important programs do not come
+with full manuals. Documentation is an essential part of any software
+package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-Perl">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+  Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got
+a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked
+Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
+introductory manuals—but those were not free.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for
+  <a name="index-O_0027Reilly-Associates">
+  </a>
+  O’Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive
+terms—no copying, no modification, source files not
+available—which exclude them from the free software
+community.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  That wasn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to
+our community’s great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary
+manual publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their
+manuals since then. Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell
+me about a manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help
+the
+  <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-3">
+  </a>
+  GNU Project—and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to
+explain that he had signed a contract with a publisher that would
+restrict it so that we cannot use it.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
+can ill afford to lose manuals this way.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+price. The problem with these manuals was not that O’Reilly
+Associates charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is
+fine. (The
+  <a name="index-FSF_002c-and-selling-GNU-manuals">
+  </a>
+  <a name="index-manuals_002c-GNU">
+  </a>
+  <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-manuals">
+  </a>
+  Free Software Foundation sells printed
+copies of free GNU manuals, too.) But
+GNU manuals are available in source code form, while these manuals are
+available only on paper. GNU manuals come with permission to copy and
+modify; the Perl manuals do not. These restrictions are the problems.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free
+software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be
+permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
+on line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  As a general rule, I don’t believe that it is essential for people to
+have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues
+for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For
+example, I don’t think you or I are obliged to give permission to
+modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our
+views.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right
+to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+conscientious they will change the manual too—so they can provide
+accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual
+which forbids programmers from being conscientious and finishing the job, or
+more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if
+they change the program, does not fill our community’s needs.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some
+kinds of limits on the method of modification pose no problem. For
+example, requirements to preserve the original author’s copyright
+notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are OK. It is
+also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that
+they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be
+deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical
+topics. (Some GNU manuals have them.)
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical
+matter, they don’t stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the
+manual to fit the modified program. In other words, they don’t block
+the free software community from making full use of the manual.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  However, it must be possible to modify all the
+  <em>
+   technical
+  </em>
+  content of the manual, and then distribute the result through all the usual
+media, through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
+block the community, the manual is not free, and so we need another
+manual.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  Unfortunately, it is often hard to find someone to write another
+manual when a proprietary manual exists. The obstacle is that many
+users think that a proprietary manual is good enough—so they
+don’t see the need to write a free manual. They do not see that the
+free operating system has a gap that needs filling.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  Why do users think that proprietary manuals are good enough? Some
+have not considered the issue. I hope this article will do something
+to change that.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-proprietary-manuals">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+  Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same
+reason so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they
+judge in purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion.
+These people are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions
+spring from values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for
+those of us who do value freedom.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-promote-free-documentation">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+  Please spread the word about this issue. We continue to lose manuals
+to proprietary publishing. If we spread the word that proprietary
+manuals are not sufficient, perhaps the next person who wants to help
+GNU by writing documentation will realize, before it is too late, that
+he must above all make it free.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted
+manuals instead of proprietary ones. One way you can help this is to
+check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, and
+prefer copylefted manuals to noncopylefted ones.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  <b>
+   Note:
+  </b>
+  We maintain a page that lists free books available from other publishers.
+  <a name="index-documentation-_0028see-also-both-FDL-and-manuals_0029-3">
+  </a>
+  <a name="index-manuals-_0028see-also-manuals_002c-FDL_002c-and-documentation_0029-2">
+  </a>
+ </p>
+ <hr size="2"/>
+