diff options
| author | upstream source tree <ports@midipix.org> | 2015-03-15 20:14:05 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | upstream source tree <ports@midipix.org> | 2015-03-15 20:14:05 -0400 |
| commit | 554fd8c5195424bdbcabf5de30fdc183aba391bd (patch) | |
| tree | 976dc5ab7fddf506dadce60ae936f43f58787092 /libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/appendix_free.html | |
| download | cbb-gcc-4.6.4-554fd8c5195424bdbcabf5de30fdc183aba391bd.tar.bz2 cbb-gcc-4.6.4-554fd8c5195424bdbcabf5de30fdc183aba391bd.tar.xz | |
obtained gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 from upstream website;upstream
verified gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2.sig;
imported gcc-4.6.4 source tree from verified upstream tarball.
downloading a git-generated archive based on the 'upstream' tag
should provide you with a source tree that is binary identical
to the one extracted from the above tarball.
if you have obtained the source via the command 'git clone',
however, do note that line-endings of files in your working
directory might differ from line-endings of the respective
files in the upstream repository.
Diffstat (limited to 'libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/appendix_free.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/appendix_free.html | 126 |
1 files changed, 126 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/appendix_free.html b/libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/appendix_free.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..84f44035d --- /dev/null +++ b/libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/appendix_free.html @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><title>Appendix C. Free Software Needs Free Documentation</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL-NS Stylesheets V1.76.1"/><meta name="keywords" content=" ISO C++ , library "/><link rel="home" href="../spine.html" title="The GNU C++ Library"/><link rel="up" href="bk01pt04.html" title="Part IV. Appendices"/><link rel="prev" href="backwards.html" title="Backwards Compatibility"/><link rel="next" href="appendix_gpl.html" title="Appendix D. GNU General Public License version 3"/></head><body><div class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="3" align="center">Appendix C. + Free Software Needs Free Documentation + +</th></tr><tr><td align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="backwards.html">Prev</a> </td><th width="60%" align="center">Part IV. + Appendices +</th><td align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="appendix_gpl.html">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr/></div><div class="appendix" title="Appendix C. Free Software Needs Free Documentation"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a id="appendix.free"/> + Free Software Needs Free Documentation + <a id="id505314" class="indexterm"/> +</h1></div></div></div><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><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 +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 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 Free Software Foundation <a class="link" href="http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html">sells printed copies</a> 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 to be conscientious and finish 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 <span class="emphasis"><em>technical</em></span> +content of the manual, and then distribute the result in 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><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 non-copylefted ones. +</p><p> +[Note: We now maintain a <a class="link" href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/doc/other-free-books.html">web page +that lists free books available from other publishers</a>]. +</p><p>Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA</p><p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are +permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this +notice is preserved.</p><p>Report any problems or suggestions to <code class="email"><<a class="email" href="mailto:webmaster@fsf.org">webmaster@fsf.org</a>></code>.</p></div><div class="navfooter"><hr/><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="backwards.html">Prev</a> </td><td align="center"><a accesskey="u" href="bk01pt04.html">Up</a></td><td align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="appendix_gpl.html">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Backwards Compatibility </td><td align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="../spine.html">Home</a></td><td align="right" valign="top"> Appendix D. + <acronym class="acronym">GNU</acronym> General Public License version 3 + </td></tr></table></div></body></html> |