No absolutely not. I wasn't talking of money, I was talking of free license. You used software released with a free license, and documentation available with a free license, to write about software released with a free license, but your end product is a work without a free license. All I'm saying is that you took all the benefits that come with free licenses, but didn't contribute back with a free licensed work. You can do that of course, and again I'm not talking about money. It's just disappointing in a sense.
Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree, and money does play a huge role when your living depends on what you create. The free resource gives you freedom to choose but you are disappointed when people do so, then what is the point of the free license you talk about?
Programming languages like Python and Ruby are also free software that come with documentation. Should books written for those languages also come with free license?
I don't understand why you are so defensive. I repeat myself: I'm not talking about money, you can sell for how much you want and I never suggested that you should work for free. It's almost like you're not reading what I'm writing.
Anyway, it sounds like you have a very opportunistic idea of what is a free license, like "what it matters to me is only that I can use this material without paying". You are entitled to that, I said this in my prev comment as well. What is disappointing is the thought that somebody would consider these free resources as something merely to be exploited at no cost. If somebody has worked to prepare a free buffet you don't just take everything for yourself because it's free anyway, then tell to the other people that they have no reason to complain because you did nothing wrong. You can, but what kind of person does that? I don't know if this is the best example, but that's the feeling.
also, do you mean that one shouldn't make money by using free software which gives the freedom to make money?