Free & Non-Free Documentation

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.

Comments

Quality documentation

[spencerogden]

I think what really may be needed is for an organization, such as this one, to raise donations to hire writers to fill in the gaps in open documentation. We all know some projects are documented well others poorly, all of them could use help making the documentation make sense to newbies. This just isn't something that enough people do out of the good of their hearts. Maybe this would be a path to getting quality documentation.

Fantastic...

[pongo000]

Now we have three open-source/free software doc projects: The featured project, LDP, and OSWG. So much wasted effort by so many people who could do God only knows what if they were to combine their talents, rather than taking their ball and running home at ever little perceived slight.

No, this isn't a troll, just an expression of frustration from someone who simply sees the fragmentation of open-source/free software as a Very Bad Thing. Those who promote this type of behavior (including the submitter) are doing a disservice to the open-source/free software community, as well as throwing up unnecessary barriers to those who would like to be part of the action but simply do not have the time or the patience to deal with all the in-fighting.

Re:Fantastic...

[Guylhem]

Alas, the OSWG died of a slow and painful death - here's the death certificate BTW : http://www.oswg.org/.

The LDP is just about writing documentation. If you add the BSD doc proj., the GNOME doc. proj and the KDE doc proj you have 99% of the documentation that's currently produced.

The OSWG did try to become a meta-documentation project. It failed. Too bad. But we still need some kind of organisation around the documentation projects, for exemple to sponsor authors, decide common documentation formats or rewrite non-free or bad documentation, etc.

Just consider the free software world and the number of organisations (LPI, GNU, Open something) which try to support individual projects.

Now consider the free documentation world, where there is *only* 4 significant projects, and no meta organisation *at all*.

It's not about fragmentation or waisting effort- it's the beggining of a collaborative work. If the LDP, the GDP, the LDP and BSD doc. want to build bridges, we (GWM) will be there to help them. If they don't, we will still collect documentation and try to combine the fruit of they effort.

That's the beauty of free software - you can build on someone else's work.

An excellent reference

[Leeji]

If this project becomes a centralized point of distribution or access (ie: SourceForge,) this could really help the open-knowledge community.

For example, many people run out to buy expensive assembler books when the best resource is available online. Or, they run out to buy expensive Linux device driver manuals when the best resource is available online.

Open-source software mainly helps people write new software that uses key techniques / algorithms from open software. Open-source documentation, on the other hand, helps impart the foundations on which the open-source programs get created.

Ideally, this openscience approach would spread -- and students wouldn't need to spend $500 per semester on textbooks. And unfortunately, the Project Gutenberg idea to import books as their copyright expires (50 years after the author dies) would never fly for technology-based books.

As a side note, this index of online books has a lot of good information.

Re:Leave the politics out of it.

[ryants]

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.

Re:The "problems" went the other way around

[Error27]

How exactly is Debian making a big deal about this?

They just decided to put the documents that don't meat DFSG in a non-free directory. It's not a big deal.

Slashdot is making a big deal out of this perhaps... And btw a lot of mis-informed comments like
this one and were moderated up last time so don't believe everything you read here.

There are only 273 LDP documents that don't meet Debian Free Software Guidelines. A lot of the authors of these articles probably don't care too much if people translate their documents or if people add things to make them distro specific etc. However, unless the author gives specific permision then it is illegal for Debian to do so.

Seriously though, as I look down the actual list of non-free documents I have a hard time seeing what the big deal is. Many of them don't really apply to Linux these days. Some dealt with old versions of X, the 2.2 kernel, old versions of red hat, old hardware, or integrating Linux and OS/2 for example etc. Some of them are amusing and have historical value like the coffee-howto. I was surprised that the apache-faq was non-free but that's about it. It's easy to forget how fast things change in the Linux world, reading through the list reminded me of that.

Conclusion: 1) Don't believe everything people say on slashdot. 2) Most people are happy with licenses like FDL or other free licenses so please consider using one. 3) If you don't use one Debian doesn't hate you, they'll just put your document in the non-free directory.

btw: If you want to know whether your LDP document does not meet DFSG just check this list. I really doubt your document is on it.