The Puffin Group Sponsors Open Source Writers 17
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.
"
Money... it's a gas... (Score:2)
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?
I can't code, but I can write. Am I stupid? (Score:2)
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
And they aren't the only ones! (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
Whuh? This is news? (Score:1)
I would like to formally announce a strategic partnership with my neighbor. Every other week, I'll mow his yard, and in the between weeks, he'll mow my lawn. Oh, and, uh, we'll also do linux consulting on our free weekends, and work to port Linux to the Lawnmower Architecture.
[p.s. I am biased]
[p.p.s. They're still valid opinions]
Coding around the lake of documentation. (Score:1)
for GNU/Linux.
Something like the open directory.
A website where it were possible assign as editor on a open document.
Then on every document it should be possible for the visitors to
leave comments and suggestions which the editor use to update the document.
All the documents should then ordered in a directory like Yahoo [yahoo.com] or Aeiwi [aeiwi.com]
so they are easy to navigate and browse.
So, if you like to code, what about coding this ??
Re:Money... it's a gas... (Score:2)
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:
- 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?
- 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:- Hey! I wrote those docs, I should be compensated! (see Why Software Should Not Have Owners [gnu.org])
- 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 [unc.edu] and O'Reilly's Linux Network Administrator's Guide [oreilly.com], 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 [gnu.org].
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!).
Re:I can't code, but I can write. Am I stupid? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Money... it's a gas... (Score:1)
It'd be A GOOD THING [TM} if it's true. (Score:1)
For examples, there are initiatives abound to write open-source softwares for education, and those softwares not only will benefit the schools (by cutting down cost) but also the generations of students to come.
Most of the time, under the propriety software model, schools have to upgrade their softwares in order to get updated --- like MicroSoft's Encarta encyclopedias, if what you have is 1996 version, you just gotta upgrade or you won't get the new stuffs they put in --- but under the open-source models, scores of volunteers around the world can do the upgrading for FREE, and because there are PEER REVIEWS among the world-wide volunteer network, the upgraded informations will stay FACTUAL too !!
The effort taken to foster the open-source development with technical and financial support will ultimately benefit the entire world.
I would like to give my thanks to all those who will support the open-source initiatives and also to those who actively volunteer their talents and valuable time to do the actual coding.
Thanks to all. God bless !!!
Re:It'd be A GOOD THING [TM} if it's true. (Score:1)
Public schools (and public librarys)!
This is exactly where Linux and GPL should excell. It boggles my mind for PUBLIC institutions to pay for software.
Re:Money... it's a gas... (Score:1)