X-Git-Url: https://oss.titaniummirror.com/gitweb?a=blobdiff_plain;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3%2Fdoc%2Fxml%2Fmanual%2Fappendix_free.xml;fp=libstdc%2B%2B-v3%2Fdoc%2Fxml%2Fmanual%2Fappendix_free.xml;h=c2cf1c157844ade320d186c4eba83db85d8fcc8f;hb=6fed43773c9b0ce596dca5686f37ac3fc0fa11c0;hp=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000;hpb=27b11d56b743098deb193d510b337ba22dc52e5c;p=msp430-gcc.git diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c2cf1c15 --- /dev/null +++ b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ + + + + + + + + + + ISO C++ + + + library + + + + + + Free Software Needs Free Documentation + <indexterm> + <primary>Appendix</primary> + <secondary>Free Documentation</secondary> + </indexterm> + + + +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]. + + +Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA + +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. + +