diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'gcc-4.4.3/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml')
| -rw-r--r-- | gcc-4.4.3/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml | 182 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 182 deletions
diff --git a/gcc-4.4.3/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml b/gcc-4.4.3/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml deleted file mode 100644 index c2cf1c157..000000000 --- a/gcc-4.4.3/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,182 +0,0 @@ -<?xml version='1.0'?> -<!DOCTYPE appendix PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.5//EN" - "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd" -[ ]> - -<appendix id="appendix.free" xreflabel="Free"> -<?dbhtml filename="appendix_free.html"?> - -<appendixinfo> - <keywordset> - <keyword> - ISO C++ - </keyword> - <keyword> - library - </keyword> - </keywordset> -</appendixinfo> - -<title> - Free Software Needs Free Documentation - <indexterm> - <primary>Appendix</primary> - <secondary>Free Documentation</secondary> - </indexterm> -</title> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we -can ill afford to lose manuals this way. -</para> - -<para> - 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 <ulink url="http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html">sells printed copies</ulink> 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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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.) -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -However, it must be possible to modify all the <emphasis>technical</emphasis> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> - -<para> -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. -</para> -<para> -[Note: We now maintain a <ulink url="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/doc/other-free-books.html">web page -that lists free books available from other publishers</ulink>]. -</para> - -<para>Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA</para> - -<para>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are -permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this -notice is preserved.</para> - -<para>Report any problems or suggestions to <email>webmaster@fsf.org</email>.</para> - -</appendix> |