Re: [Caml-list] OCaml reference manual non-free license

[Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr>]

On 03/01/2018 16:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I notice that Florian is correct and copies of the reference manual do
> indeed have a non-free license (specifically restrictions on making
> derivative works).
> Is this intended?

The restriction on derivative works is very much intended.

The license predates Creative Commons, but in CC terms it would be CC-BY-ND.

The reason is pretty much what Pierre Boutillier wrote.  We view this
manual as a scientific publication.  In those  publications, authors
take full responsibility for the contents of the text.  It's not like
a software license that starts by disclaiming all warranties and
liabilities.  So, if I have my name on it as one of the authors and if
I'm responsible for the contents, of course I won't let anyone modify
the contents without my approval.

>  If so we'll have to drop this documentation from Fedora which would
> be a shame.  If not, could the work be relicensed under a suitable
> free license?

Debian is happy with putting OCaml's manual in the non-free section.  

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main lists CC-BY-ND as a good
license for contents, but doesn't list it (neither good nor bad) for
documentation.  Care to explain the difference between documentation
and contents?

- Xavier Leroy