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

["Maxime Dénès" <mail@maximedenes.fr>]

Hi,

On 01/03/2018 05:52 PM, Boutillier, Pierre wrote:
> As you've already notice by yourself debian also ships the
documentation as non-free package and everybody is already aware[1] of
the drawback a non-free license has on integration in free
distributions... (Coq has the exact same problem for example)

Just to clarify, Coq does not use the same license for its reference
manual as OCaml. It uses OPL (with no options elected), which is
considered free by the FSF but not by Debian (because of a few technical
restrictions on derivative works, but nothing like having to ask
permission to the original authors before distribution).

AFAIK it never prevented it to be accepted as a citation, so I believe
the argument is incorrect. Xavier is talking about authorship
responsibility, which is different indeed.

On 01/04/2018 02:44 PM, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> 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.
> 
I probably don't understand the license text correctly, since I have
little knowledge on this topic. But just to clarify: if I want to push a
documentation patch to my public github fork of OCaml, do I need to
first get a written approval from  Xavier, Damien, Alain, Jacques,
Didier and Jérôme? If not, what exempts me from it (despite the third
item in the license)?

Maxime.