> The only way a reference manual can be admissible as a (citable)
publication is if, once released, it is not editable.

I don't think so. A good citation is one that is accessible in the exact
form that the published work is based on. For work products that can
evolve, one should thus provide a version. In the case of the OCaml manual,
this is easy enough since it is maintained in git. Additionally, there is
no "requirement" that a citation follow this criteria.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Boutillier, Pierre <
Pierre_Boutillier@hms.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Hi Richard, Hi list,
>
> I am not an authoritative voice, I only share what I'm aware in order to
> save time.
>
> Don't hold your breath expecting a relicensing.
>
> 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)
>
> The rationale is the following:
> Because scientifically research is evaluating through (and therefore sadly
> driven by) citation metrics, things built in academic settings have to be
> citable. The only way to cite a software (found up to now) is to cite its
> reference manual. The only way a reference manual can be admissible as a
> (citable) publication is if, once released, it is not editable.
>
> But, indeed, if it is not editable, it is not free anymore... Here is
> where we are stuck and have been for a long time with no escape (so far).
>
> I am (and I know I'm not the only one) sorry about that.
>
> Pierre B.
>
> [1] I didn't manage to dig out links to former discussion on the subject
> in the time frame I allocated to this reply but they are some and maybe
> someone can find them easier than I do.
>
> > Le 3 janv. 2018 à 16:08, Richard W.M. Jones <rich@annexia.org> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi, this bug was filed:
> >
> >  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530647
> >
> > 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?  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?
> >
> > Rich.
> >
> > --
> > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>