Free software needs free documentation
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#2Kinda ironic that the GFDL isn't even considered a free license by Debian, at least when invariant sections are included.
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#3[deleted]
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#4Someone posted but then deleted an interesting comment about certain open source projects (OpenSSL possibly?) simply ignoring documentation contributions.
The comment was something like "it was easier to get the documentation published as a printed book than to get the project to accept it."
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#5> The authors of the good manuals had written them for O'Reilly Associates,
I see the bar is relatively... low.
That being said, I expect the reason authors wrote for O'Reilly was so they could actually get paid.
> 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.
The biggest obstacle is probably either a) finding money to pay a good writer or b) finding a good writer who is happy to work without pay.
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#6Heaven forbid that free software authors want some sort of income.
There are those that do not have a free office in MIT and a Mc Arthur grant.
Apart from that, really only the leaders of big projects that were low hanging fruit in the 1990s and 2000s cash in massively, while most of the work is done by others.
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#7> The authors of the good manuals had written them for O'Reilly Associates, I see the bar is relatively... low. That being said, I expect the reason authors wrote for O'Reilly was so they could actually get paid. > 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…
(c) finding a good writer able and willing to do the work under any conditions.
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#8Kinda ironic that the GFDL isn't even considered a free license by Debian, at least when invariant sections are included.
Invariant sections aren't free, surely?
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#9”[...] 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 from being conscientious and finishing 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.[...]”
Re: Free software needs free documentation
#10> The authors of the good manuals had written them for O'Reilly Associates, I see the bar is relatively... low. That being said, I expect the reason authors wrote for O'Reilly was so they could actually get paid. > 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…
I think you may have missed this part:
>The problem with these manuals was not that O'Reilly Associates charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is fine.