From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html | 191 ------------------------- 1 file changed, 191 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html deleted file mode 100644 index 872f86e..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_9.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,191 +0,0 @@ - - - - - -

- 9. Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation -

- - - - -

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for - - - 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. -

-

- 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 - - - 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. -

-

- Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we -can ill afford to lose manuals this way. -

-

- 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 - - - - - - - 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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.) -

-

- 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. -

-

- However, it must be possible to modify all the - - technical - - 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- - Note: - - We maintain a page that lists free books available from other publishers. - - - - -

-
- -- cgit v1.2.3