[HN Gopher] Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation
        
       Author : crazypython
       Score  : 29 points
       Date   : 2020-12-15 21:35 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.gnu.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.gnu.org)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | musicale wrote:
       | Someone deleted an interesting comment I wanted to vote up about
       | OpenSSL (I believe) simply ignoring documentation contributions.
        
       | musicale wrote:
       | > 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.
        
         | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
         | (c) finding a good writer able and willing to do the work under
         | any conditions.
        
         | cycloptic wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | Uehreka wrote:
           | If you're saying people need to make their content available
           | for free with an option to pay for a printed copy, then
           | you're telling them they can't make money from their work,
           | which is the thing at issue.
           | 
           | And we can argue about whether authors of books about FOSS
           | tools should embrace the same ethos as those tools'
           | developers, but it seems silly to hide the ball or act like
           | there's a win-win solution hiding in plain sight.
        
       | bnkl wrote:
       | Heaven 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.
        
       | ssivark wrote:
       | _"[...] 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.[...]"_
        
       | ignoranceprior wrote:
       | Kinda ironic that the GFDL isn't even considered a free license
       | by Debian, at least when invariant sections are included.
        
         | mattl wrote:
         | Invariant sections aren't free, surely?
        
       | egypturnash wrote:
       | Where's the GNU grant program to help fund the time it takes to
       | write a good manual for something, then? Complete with people
       | whose job at least partially involves finding folks who have had
       | something worthwhile to say about a program, and convincing them
       | that they want to spend the next few months of their lives
       | expanding it into Serious Documentation?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2020-12-15 23:00 UTC)