Sven LUTHER wrote: > On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 08:56:17PM +0800, Yang Shouxun wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>can anybody enlighten me why ocaml-doc is non-free in Debian distribution? > > > Because it fails many points of the DFSG, in particular, you have no > right to modify it. That is how the authors want it, and so we can only > distribute it in non-free, which is okay (altough i guess other > documentation in debian also have this same problem and shouldbe moved > out of main into non-free, i have not checked though). > > Also, anyway, we don't have the original source of the libs, only the > produced stuff, so this is another point making it non-free. > > There are other stuff that are in the ocaml-doc package, or could be, > that are non-free also, like the examples and other such.
I see. While it's their freedom to do so (I don't want to question that), it's a little bit strange that Inria developers choose to keep the ocaml-doc separate from the distribution and not release the source of the ocaml-doc. I guess it's useful to the user upgrading if a diff between the present and the last version of ocaml-doc can be provided. >>Interestingly, vrms does not list it as a non-free package. > > > What is vrms ? vrms is a package in Debian that checks no-free packages in the distribution, to satisfy RMS's complaints, thus the name, virtual RMS. > Anyway, much discution went into the move of ocaml-doc from main to > non-free, you can look at the archives of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get an idea of some of them. > Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
