+@node Free Software and Free Manuals, GNU Free Documentation License, Full Graph, Top
+@appendix Free Software and Free Manuals
+
+@strong{by Richard M. Stallman}
+@sp 1
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
+can ill afford to lose manuals this way.
+
+@c (texinfo)uref
+(The Free Software Foundation
+@uref{http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html#DescriptionsOfGNUDocumentation, ,
+sells printed copies} of free @uref{http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html,
+GNU manuals}, too.)
+
+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 sells printed copies 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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.)
+
+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.
+
+However, it must be possible to modify all the technical 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+@sp 2
+@noindent
+Note: The Free Software Foundation maintains a page on its Web site
+that lists free books available from other publishers:@*
+@uref{http://www.gnu.org/doc/other-free-books.html}
+
+
+@node GNU Free Documentation License, Index, Free Software and Free Manuals, Top