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

[Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>]

Zitat von Marek Kubica <marek@xivilization.net> (Fri, 5 Jan 2018  
21:55:04 +0100)

> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:44:05 +0100
> Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> wrote:
>
[...]
>
>> - Any translation or derivative work of the OCaml documentation and
>>  user's manual must be approved by the authors in writing before
>>  distribution.
>
> It also creates issues for people wanting to contribute to the OCaml
> manual on e.g. GitHub. It is not possible to create a pull request with
> a change to the manual on any public platform because that would be
> publishing without approval.
[...]

As I understand it: The official, approved version is, what INRIA provides via
*.tar.gz as ocaml release.
Anything before is unapproved stuff, staged to become approved.

Then providing pull-requests is no problem.
And, btw. creating a pull-request does not mean that they are accepted,
which is another step that seperates approved and non-approved.

Regarding the quotation-problem, the official version might come with
hashes and cryptographic igning of a document.
But it seems, such thing is missing in science in general.
For example measurement data can be found on many servers that provide  
data openly
(which is good), but so far no hashsums or signing of the data is done.
So, data corruption might occur, and the validity of data is gone.

This is not only a problem of computer science / OCaml docs.

Ciao,
   Oliver