Free Documentation License 1.3

The GNU Manifesto is a fine document standing on its own. To bind it immutably to a software instruction manual, compelling all to reproduce it there, is ranting. As a political document it should be immutable, but should not be bound to something that is not a political document.

Bruce

Yes Don, the GNU manifesto is a rant, in this context. A political manifesto, no matter how important, heart-warming, eloquent and what not, is something that should be able to stand on its own.

I normally only buy fair trade food (if available). If all the fair trade food would have a booklet attached to it explaining all its wonderful virtues, I wouldn't buy it; I'd be disgusted by the self-glorification. A small fair trade logo (and occasionally a few *lines* of text) is enough for me to know that I'm buying the right thing. Similarly, having ls show:

Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.

when I type "ls --version" is perfectly fine. Having it show it each type I just type "ls" would have people mass migrating to some other implementation. This is the advertising clause of BSD all over again.

Granted, not everyone is aware of the virtues of free software (just as not everyone is aware of the virtues of fair trade food, liberalism, democracy, freedom of speech, DRM-free products, etc.), but that's no excuse to beat them over the head with it. You don't win supporters by telling them that they are wrong. You win supporters by letting them see that you're right (and sometimes it's just not possible).

Yes, you're providing the users libre software/documentation. Should they feel thankful for this and put up with anything just because of that?

A user that would ever care about the ideological difference between free and proprietary is bright enough to notice even a small blurb. If the software/documentation has high enough quality, and the amount of available material is large enough, users will not be able to avoid noticing even a small copyright/license notice. This is the kind of positive interest that sparks curiosity to find out more.

Make sure that if the user googles for the GPL/FDL, the first thing (s)he'll see, along with the license itself, is the GNU manifesto. Because if (s)he's come that far, (s)he will be open to the ideas. A user just reading about the right way to get ls to show its output in columns is less likely to care.

Mass-migration to libre software/documentation/media/whatnot will not happen unless we can be at least as good as the (proprietary) competition or have something that gives us a competitive advantage. For software, that's usually pretty simple; the price. Even if some users switch to GNU/Linux or one of the BSDs for ideological reasons, John Doe will not care one iota at first whether the software is libre or closed; what he'll do is look at the two EeePC's on the stand, notice that the GNU/Linux version is cheaper than the Windows version, and thus pick it.

I highly doubt that a user who receives a manual page (sorry, but I totally abhor the abomination that is info), where 90% of the size of that manual page is the GNU Manifesto, will get a positive impression of the free software movement. I imagine that the first thought that will pop into mind is "rant, rant, rant". A user, on the other hand, who keeps getting high quality documents and software, with more responsive developers than the earlier proprietary system he used, will eventually care about how come it's possible. And if he doesn't, banging him over the head with the reason won't help one bit.