From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A9082355 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:44:05 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,507,1508796000"; d="scan'208";a="307662326" Received: from estephe.paris.inria.fr (HELO [128.93.64.229]) ([128.93.64.229]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2018 14:44:05 +0100 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20180103150857.bktw4faavkywm4cw@annexia.org> From: Xavier Leroy Message-ID: <07e8a536-984b-850b-6dec-2c30ea0cfb2d@inria.fr> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:44:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180103150857.bktw4faavkywm4cw@annexia.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml reference manual non-free license 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