| @appendix Free Software Needs Free Documentation |
| @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{http://www.fsf.org/doc/other-free-books.html}. |