Re: caml-light licence question.
Sven Luther <email@example.com>:
> 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).
> 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".