The Puffin Group Sponsors Open Source Writers

dria writes "The Puffin Group yesterday announced that it will be fully sponsoring the Open Source Writers Group, a growing organization of volunteer writers, editors, proofreaders, and translators who donate their time toward non-commercial open-source projects. The Puffin Group will provide the Open Source Writers Group with a combination of technical resources and financial compensation in order to ensure its continued existence and growth. "

Comments

Money... it's a gas...

[David E. Smith]

Sorry, couldn't resist the Pink Floyd bit...

If this means that someone will get paid for writing some of this documentation, then it may be one of the best things for open-source in a while.

Many programmers, myself included, absolutely hate writing docs. It's not fun. Code is fun. Solving new problems is a lot of fun. Sometimes, talking about it is fun, but only with people who understand what's going on.

Documentation isn't nearly as much fun. I can do it, and do it well, but I won't promise to enjoy it. And if I can choose between spending free time on code or on docs, code will win almost every time.

Now if you'll throw some money at me, docs could win. There's a LOT of software out there that could use some decent documentation (ideally docs that are as free as the code).

So where do I send my resume?

Re:Money... it's a gas...

[Matthew Weigel]

If you chop [per-copy royalties], then you aren't being adequately compensated...

What is the difference between per-copy royalties from documentation, and per-copy royalties from code?

The only possible answer I can see would be, "because you're printing out books." Well, what's the difference between that and charging for distribution of software on physical media?

There are two takes on this that all support free redistribution of documentation, and there are two views that support royalties:

reasons for free documentation:

1. Documentation of software is a part of the software package itself. Therefore, if the software is free, why shouldn't the documentation be free? If the software is of high quality, why should I skimp on documentation?
2. If I'm just downloading the documentation with free software, then the money lost by any one due to my having the documentation in front of me is close to nil. The difference between the money lost from letting me download software, or letting me download software and documentation, is nil. The cost difference between writing software for free, and writing documentation concurrently with the software, is not generally measurable, so again the difference is nil.

reasons against free documentation:

1. Hey! I wrote those docs, I should be compensated! (see Why Software Should Not Have Owners)
2. The difficulty of producing quality hardcopy documentation(i.e., going through a publisher) require a more conventional (non-free) way of doing things.

In my opinion, the first argument should not even be considered for free software; the only reason to use it is to try to make available the software free of charge, but make using it so hard that documentation also needs to be bought. That essentially means crippling the software (or at least the user interface, which is an important part of the software ), or similarly producing the software in a sub-optimal development environment.

The second is reasonable; if you look at the LDP's and O'Reilly's Linux Network Administrator's Guide, it is woefully outdated, due at least in part (as far as I can discern) to the ease of downloading it rather than buying it, and most people's willingness to do so (and hence the unprofitability of updating it).

A more carefully considered presentation of these views is over at Free Software and Free Manuals.

So how do you make money writing documentation? Well, how do you make money selling free software? Personal service, consulting, teaching, etc. Can people make money doing that? You betcha (if you don't believe me, look at how profitable certification teaching is!).

I can't code, but I can write. Am I stupid?

[Zarn]

I've used open source software for over 8 years.
My coding skills are limited, I know only a bit of C and shellscript programming. I can, however write a decent document or manual page. I'm wondering, does writing the documentation for something require that you know the program as well as the person who has written it? Would I need weeks of experience with the software before I could even start writing? Or would the programmer be able to help me by providing a "rough, technical draft"? How does this work? Are most manuals written by the people who wrote the program as well?

--Zarn

Re:I can't code, but I can write. Am I stupid?

[Penrif]

"does writing the documentation for something require that you know the program as well as the person who has written it?"

No. Docs are usually not writen by the folks who write the code. This make sence, seeing as the typical end user is not in the least bit interested in what the programer knows. What is probably more useful is the writings of someone who has learned to use the tool well and is good at explaining things in English - not C.

As Linux starts to edge more into mainstream/non-geek use, we're going to need more folks like you. ;)

And they aren't the only ones!

[Bruce Perens]

Major publishers like IDG and Macmillan are bringing out books under Open Source licenses. If you are an author who would like to write one, I can put you in touch with their editors.

Thanks

Bruce