Appendix C. + Free Software Needs Free Documentation + +
Prev	Part IV. + Appendices +	Next

+ 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 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. +

+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 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. +

+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 non-copylefted ones. +

+[Note: We now maintain a web page +that lists free books available from other publishers]. +

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are +permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this +notice is preserved.

Report any problems or suggestions to <webmaster@fsf.org>.

Prev	Up	Next
Backwards Compatibility	Home	Appendix D. + GNU General Public License version 3 +