The same arguments apply to FOSS, and can be addressed by all such pre-existing essays, arguments and flame wars. Again, this is just FOSS logic applied to docu

The same arguments apply to FOSS, and can be addressed by all such pre-existing essays, arguments and flame wars. Again, this is just FOSS logic applied to documentation; the fundamentals are still the same. Anyways taking FOSS money-making strategies, some can be applied here: selling the tree, not the text (ala SaaS) Justifying consultancy service based on writing/maintaining (ala redhat, technical bloggers, etc) Selling the potential for more books/writing (ala patreon/Kickstarter) Being paid to write because someone or a community needs it (ala corporate-backed OSS developers) But anyways the monetization strategy doesn’t really matter, since the crux of the argument is that for FOSS to really be complete, the manuals need to be included in that definition; which seems to me entirely correct. Whether FOSS is a viable strategy in the first place is a separate question, but one RMS has spent a few decades making a case for, and a lot stronger of a case than I’d have given him if I heard him blathering on about it when he started