Alastair M. Robinson wrote:
functionality is fine, but doing either of these things and calling the package "ArgyllCMS" seems to me to be discourteous at best, especially when it appears that attempting to use the missing functionality just fails silently, without any error message.
I think that's because it exposes a bug. The upcoming V1.2.0 release will emit an error message under the same conditions. The situation is unfortunate, and I continue to be amazed at the lack of respect that distro's show for the integrity of upstream packages. There's no doubt that the GPL permits such modifications, although I am concerned that the conditions under section 5 a) of the GPLV3 are not being adequately met, and I also wonder whether my moral rights (which is something that has legal force in many countries) over the work are being adequately respected. Graeme Gill.