From: Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> Subject: Have we got a good free Perl manual? Date: 1998/05/28 Message-ID: <sd7k975zvek.fsf@mescaline.gnu.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 357498184 Reply-To: r...@gnu.org Organization: Project GNU Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.perl.misc [I first tried to post this on Saturday May 23 but it did not get through. Paul Fisher posted it for me on Monday, but there is doubt that it was noticed, since it did not come from me or gnu.org.] Once upon a time, I thought I would learn Perl. I got a copy of a free manual, but I found it simply unreadable, and gave up. Perl users told me that there were better manuals, but they were not free. Why was this? Their authors had sold the manuals to O'Reilly, instead of contributing them to the free software community. It wasn't the first time and (to our community's great loss) it was far from the last. O'Reilly and other publishers have enticed a great many authors to withhold their manuals since then. Partly as a result of this, partly because writing good English is a skill which most good programmers have not studied, a lack of documentation is one of the worst deficiencies of free operating systems today. Perl is an important piece of free software, and it ought to have a *good* free manual. So I added this item to the GNU task list, hoping this would encourage someone to write one. That was a few years ago. If there is now a good free manual, that's great. I'm always glad to remove an item from the task list because the job has been done. I might even buy a copy of this manual, if someone is selling them--especially if it is O'Reilly. (If we buy O'Reilly manuals only when they are free, we can encourage O'Reilly to publish and sell more free manuals.) But before I start celebrating, I ought to verify the facts--in particular, verify that the manual in question is actually free. The criterion for free documentation is basically the same as for free software: users have to be free to redistribute it, with or without changes, either gratis or for a fee, in any medium. 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 a manual for free software. The most natural use of such a manual is to distribute it in free operating systems, along with the program it documents. And 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 people to be conscientious and finish the job, or more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch, does not do the job. While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some kinds of limits on modification are ok. For example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are ok. It is also ok 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 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 are ok because they don't block the free software community from doing its thing with the program and the manual together. However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of the manual; otherwise, the restrictions do block the community, the manual is not free, and we need another manual. To be sure, many users find non-free manuals "useful". And they can indeed be useful, in a purely materialistic sense, just as non-free software can. What they can't be is part of the free software community. I expect that I'll soon know whether Perl now has a good free manual. I hope that the answer will be yes, and that I'll be able to delete that item from the GNU task list. If not, I hope that someone will change the distribution terms on an existing good manual, or write a new one. O'Reilly is just beginning to contribute to our community; most of what they do is still non-free, and thus no contribution. If O'Reilly's Perl manual is still non-free, making it free would be a fine way to take the next step in actually contributing to free software. Copyright 1998 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved.