> 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 <marek@xivilization.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:44:05 +0100
> Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> 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
>