On 27 July 2010 15:27, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Put yourself in my shoes. Fedora is very strict about using external libraries rather than internal ones, and I had to do quite a bit of work to allow argyll to continue to be shipped in Fedora. I deal with a lot of upstream projects in my day-to-day work and argyll is much harder than most to package. Including 4 modified copies of external libraries is not exactly best practice in software development. Using a build system that's obsolete and needs patching before running is kinda unusual. All these things raise the bar for pushing this to millions of users. > 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 a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. All the changes are in the public git history with a SHA1 hash and the date. Even the tarball has a new name to make it super clear. > 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. If you're asserting your moral rights to prevent derived works under the GPLv3 you might also want to contact a lawyer. I would ask you contact the Red Hat or Fedora legal team if you have any further legal issues. Thanks. Richard.