> 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