Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free & Non-Free Documentation

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the making-things-more-clear dept.

Guylhem writes "After the problems the LDP had with Debian rules, it seems clear we need an organization which would for example sort documentation between free (as "libre" or "freedom") and non free. After some discussions with people from the GNU project and the FSF, we came to the conclusion no such project already existed. I am please to announce that I am now starting the GNU Writing Movement with help from the GNU project. We will provide links to existing free documents, with a possibility to rate the documentation quality. The project is not competing with existing documentation project such as the LDP or GDP. It will complement them, both by serving somewhat as a meta-project for free software documentation, to provide help to authors willing to replace their FAQ or HOWTO will a full Guide on a specific topic, and to develop brand-new book-length material on many topics. " If you can't find a home for your documentation at an existing documentation project, and you agree with the philosophy of the GNU project, we can help you. Volunteers are welcome for the first phase of the project - cataloging existing free software documentation, rating it, and determining TODO lists for what needs to be documented.

6 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. It won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    It's this simple: Authors of free/open software have so little economic incentive to write good documentation that they very (and I mean very) seldom do so. This new organization, while obviously very well intentioned, won't change that.

    Free/open software desperately needs much, much better documentation in two areas: End user docs and architecture/design/implementation docs for other programmers who want to work on or with the code. Until the basic economics of f/o software change, those needs won't change, either.

  2. Why so complicated? by chuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps I don't understand the pure joy of releasing information with 1000 conflicting licenses. If I were to write documentation for an existing software project, I would simply contribute it to the original author, so it may be released with the distribution, under the same license as the software.

    Does my naivete in this matter mean that the author will exploit my contribution to the project, and use it in a way that I didn't intend? Who cares? If the software is "less free" than the documentation, isn't that a problem anyway? And if the software is "more free" than the documentation, isn't that just dumb?

    Man, some people are just looking for a fight.

    --
    My Freakin Blog
  3. keep the eye on the ball, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm so sick of nitpicking about "kinds" of free; ENOUGH already.

    Why is it that all these "free license" people always seem to "greedy"? It's not enough for me to write something and hand it to you with my blessings, I have to GIVE you ALL rights to what I've written?

    All this comes off as petty bickering. Everyone involved needs to stop inventing cute little acronym "groups", and start writing documentation; most of it sucks anyway; whenever I install linux these days, all of /usr/doc/LDP etc is skipped or removed, because its all outdated garbage. Shit, some of it's more than three years+ old. Its getting to be a challenge to find docs that are actually current with the status quo of linux software.

    Why don't you boys stop the pissing match over whose license is "right", and actually fix the fucking documentation?

  4. Sounds good; promote standards by Spinality · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Despite some whiny comments below, this meta-project sounds useful and appropriate to me. I'd encourage serious contributors to give some attention to the issue of documentation standards, or (to make it less dictatorial) style guides. There are plenty of FAQ's, for example, that would have been better if the authors had samples and guidance -- so many times I've seen postings saying "I'm working on a new FAQ; here's a draft, any suggestions?" and finding that a simple template would have saved lots of time and effort.

    So to you and your contributors: If you're going to support a metadocumentation effort, try to start by consolidating metadocuments, and (perhaps) providing a linkable source of common dox and linx that folks would probably like to reference.

    --
    -- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
  5. Re:Leave the politics out of it. by ryants · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Note he writes that he couldn't sign a license agreement... hrm; like the license agreement he forces anyone who wants to put any GNU code into their projects to do ?
    From the GPL, section 5:
    5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
    You aren't forced at all. If you want to benefit from his (and others') work, then these are the rules you have to play by. You can't take without giving. If you don't like it, don't use their work. It's that simple.
    That's what made open source software so nice; you could hack without worrying about strange, arbitrary laws governing which code you can use and which you can't. Just download the code you need and go; everyone is happy.
    That what the page at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLC ompatibleLicenses is for. Makes it simple.
    it's becoming just as bad as (or even worse than) closed source software.
    How do you figure that? You have 0 rights with closed source/non-free software.
    --

    Ryan T. Sammartino
    "Ancora imparo"

  6. Re:There's a difference by AxelBoldt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A corporation provides a single, monolithic entity to approach for licencing; an open-source project provides an unkempt mishmash of hundreds of hard-to-find developers with different ideals and personalities; your average company isn't going to bother rectifying licence terms with that many different, unpredictable people.

    And what exactly is the problem with that? Let them do their things their outdated ways, who cares? Tell you what: most of the corporations who currently think they're so hot will be bankrupt ten years from now; there is no question that free software will still be around. Their model is wrong, not ours.