taler-merchant-demos

free-doc.html (9959B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs extension" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation</h2>
 <div class="thin"></div>
 
 <p>
 The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
 software&mdash;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>
 
 <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&mdash;but those were not free (not
 freedom-respecting).</p>
 
 <p>
 Why was this?  The authors of the good manuals had written them for
 O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive
 terms&mdash;no copying, no modification, source files not
 available&mdash;which made them nonfree, thus excluded them from the
 Free World.</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 GNU Project&mdash;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>
 
 <hr class="no-display" />
 <div class="announcement" role="complementary"><p>
 <a href="https://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
 about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
 </p></div>
 <hr class="no-display" />
 
 <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&mdash;that in itself is
 fine.  (The Free Software Foundation
 <a href="https://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells printed
 copies</a> of free <a href="/doc/doc.html">GNU manuals</a>, 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>
 
 <ul>
 <li><a href="/licenses/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation License</a></li>
 </ul>
 
 <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&mdash;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&mdash;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>
 
 <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>
 
 <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>
 [Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page
 that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p>
 </div>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
 <div class="unprintable">
 
 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
 the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
         replace it with the translation of these two:
 
         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
         to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
         <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
         our web pages, see <a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
         README</a>. -->
 Please see the <a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.</p>
 </div>
 
 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
      files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
      without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
      Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
      document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
      document was modified, or published.
      
      If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
      Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
      years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
      year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
      being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
      
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
 
 <p>Copyright &copy; 1996, 2019, 2021 Free Software
 Foundation, Inc.</p>
 
 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 $Date: 2021/09/05 07:59:45 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>