On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:35:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. > > My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since > > it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + > > patches, not binaries, and i will be going to discuss this with the > > upstream author(s). But is there something else i might have missed ? > > I don't see why it shouldn't be distributed in non-free. Even if you > don't immediately intend to use a patch it might be better to only > distribute a source package. That way you would be ready to make > changes if and when necessary (someone might find a security bug).
Well, technically, the fact of adding the debian directory, and to move the installation directory is considered enough of a change to make distribution of binaries illegal. That was at least the advice i got when first packaging ocaml, which had the same licence but which was later moved to a free licence. So binary distribution is not possible, and i don't consider a source package worth the effort. Also, i would had to patch, since the upstream source doesn't build right now anyway, but then they are aware of this and are planning a new release that fixes this. Notice also that my packaging effort came as a request from upstream, since caml-light is widely used for entry exams in french ingenieurs schools, and student have difficulty installing it (a thread on debian-user-french started all this). So, i think upstream can make some effort here and change the licence. Especially since ocaml, which is a later development from caml-light, has a more liberal licence. > > BTW, what should i understand of the english sentence construction of > > "the user undertakes to apply to obtain" It sound very much un-english, > > but then, maybe i just misunderstand. > > It looks weird to me, too, but I think it's semantically void in this > context. The text describes several "types" of permitted distribution > and then (as I understand it) says you must ask for permission if you > want to distribute in any other way, which is true anyway without the > strange attempt at making the "user" agree to this "condition". Maybe just a translation error, but it sounds strange even in french. I was told one time by the upstream that INRIA's legal folk were rather uncompetent about this kind of stuff. Anyway, thanks about your response. Friendly, Sven Luther
