> 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. I think this view is exaggerated, as I don't think that the people who wrote this clause would consider hosting (modified) .etex files on a Github clone of the manual's repository as "distribution". To "distribute" the documentation or manual, I would at least expect a rendered (compiled) version of it. It is not necessary to distribute a rendered copy of the manual to contribute to it. I'm not particularly fond of custom licenses either, but I don't think that they should be interpreted as making open-source contributions impossible. On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Marek Kubica wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:44:05 +0100 > Xavier Leroy wrote: > > > The restriction on derivative works is very much intended. > > > > The license predates Creative Commons, but in CC terms it would be > > CC-BY-ND. > > Non-derivative licenses like the custom one on the OCaml manual and > also CC-BY-ND create annoying edge cases. We've seen the case of > Debian and Fedora already. But reading the license: > > > - 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. > > Kind regards, > Marek > > -- > 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 >