mirror of git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git
				
				
				
			
		
			
				
	
	
		
			94 lines
		
	
	
		
			4.8 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			94 lines
		
	
	
		
			4.8 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
| @c freemanuals.texi - blurb for free documentation.
 | |
| @c This file is intended to be included within another document,
 | |
| @c hence no sectioning command or @node.
 | |
| 
 | |
| @cindex free documentation
 | |
| 
 | |
| The biggest deficiency in the free software community today is not in
 | |
| the software---it is the lack of good free documentation that we can
 | |
| include with the free software.  Many of our most important
 | |
| programs do not come with free reference manuals and free introductory
 | |
| texts.  Documentation is an essential part of any software package;
 | |
| when an important free software package does not come with a free
 | |
| manual and a free tutorial, that is a major gap.  We have many such
 | |
| gaps today.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Consider Perl, for instance.  The tutorial manuals that people
 | |
| normally use are non-free.  How did this come about?  Because the
 | |
| authors of those manuals published them with restrictive terms---no
 | |
| copying, no modification, source files not available---which exclude
 | |
| them from the free software world.
 | |
| 
 | |
| That wasn't the first time this sort of thing happened, and it was far
 | |
| from the last.  Many times we have heard a GNU user eagerly describe a
 | |
| manual that he is writing, his intended contribution to the community,
 | |
| only to learn that he had ruined everything by signing a publication
 | |
| contract to make it non-free.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
 | |
| price.  The problem with the non-free manual is not that publishers
 | |
| charge a price for printed copies---that in itself is fine.  (The Free
 | |
| Software Foundation sells printed copies of manuals, too.)  The
 | |
| problem is the restrictions on the use of the manual.  Free manuals
 | |
| are available in source code form, and give you permission to copy and
 | |
| modify.  Non-free manuals do not allow this.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The criteria of freedom for a free manual are roughly the same as for
 | |
| free software.  Redistribution (including the normal kinds of
 | |
| commercial redistribution) must be permitted, so that the manual can
 | |
| accompany every copy of the program, both on-line and on paper.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Permission for modification of the technical content is crucial too.
 | |
| When people modify the software, adding or changing features, if they
 | |
| are conscientious they will change the manual too---so they can
 | |
| provide accurate and clear documentation for the modified program.  A
 | |
| manual that leaves you no choice but to write a new manual to document
 | |
| a changed version of the program is not really available to our
 | |
| community.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Some kinds of limits on the way modification is handled are
 | |
| acceptable.  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 entire sections that
 | |
| may not be deleted or changed are acceptable, as long as they deal
 | |
| with nontechnical topics (like this one).  These kinds of restrictions
 | |
| are acceptable because they don't obstruct the community's normal use
 | |
| of the manual.
 | |
| 
 | |
| However, it must be possible to modify all the @emph{technical}
 | |
| content of the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual
 | |
| media, through all the usual channels.  Otherwise, the restrictions
 | |
| obstruct the use of the manual, it is not free, and we need another
 | |
| manual to replace it.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Please spread the word about this issue.  Our community continues to
 | |
| lose manuals to proprietary publishing.  If we spread the word that
 | |
| free software needs free reference manuals and free tutorials, perhaps
 | |
| the next person who wants to contribute by writing documentation will
 | |
| realize, before it is too late, that only free manuals contribute to
 | |
| the free software community.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you are writing documentation, please insist on publishing it under
 | |
| the GNU Free Documentation License or another free documentation
 | |
| license.  Remember that this decision requires your approval---you
 | |
| don't have to let the publisher decide.  Some commercial publishers
 | |
| will use a free license if you insist, but they will not propose the
 | |
| option; it is up to you to raise the issue and say firmly that this is
 | |
| what you want.  If the publisher you are dealing with refuses, please
 | |
| try other publishers.  If you're not sure whether a proposed license
 | |
| is free, write to @email{licensing@@gnu.org}.
 | |
| 
 | |
| You can encourage commercial publishers to sell more free, copylefted
 | |
| manuals and tutorials by buying them, and particularly by buying
 | |
| copies from the publishers that paid for their writing or for major
 | |
| improvements.  Meanwhile, try to avoid buying non-free documentation
 | |
| at all.  Check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it,
 | |
| and insist that whoever seeks your business must respect your freedom.
 | |
| Check the history of the book, and try reward the publishers that have
 | |
| paid or pay the authors to work on it.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of free documentation
 | |
| published by other publishers, at
 | |
| @url{https://www.fsf.org/doc/other-free-books.html}.
 |