Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003
Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 August 2003 02:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > "The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
> > software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
> > our systems. Documentation is an essential part of any software
> > package; when an important free software package does not come with a
> > good free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.
> >
> > "Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
> > price. 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 sale) must be permitted, on-line
> > and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
> > program.
> >
> > "Permission for modification is crucial too."
> >
> > - Richard Stallman, 1998
>
> Fantastic, GFDL doesn't even match his own words...
>
> Mike
>
> PS: BTW, he said free documentation was important, not that non-free
> documentation was evil ;)
He pretty much does say that in this article. He also waffles about the
importance of being able to modify `technical' parts of the manual.
You can find it here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
What bugs me is the following contradiction with their current practice:
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.
Now consider that most or all of the FSF documentation for their GPL'ed
software is released under the GFDL. The licenses are incompatible so
someone who forks a project cannot cut and paste text between the manual
and the software that it documents. Why don't they use the GPL for the
docs? What do they gain? They gain an invariant section about free
software; very ironic isn't it.
Peter
Reply to: