Richard Hughes wrote:
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.
Hi, Sorry, but to me it is simply disfunctional behaviour - Fedora deserves to fail if it puts dogma ahead of practicality. If the dogma ends up winning, and it's a choice between Fedora shipping a buggy or feature incomplete version of Argyll, or not shipping it at all, then my position is simple - don't ship it at all - point people at the Argyll website instead (or a distro that can see its way clear to shipping a fully working version). You'll be doing everyone involved a favour.
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.
Be that as it may, the information has demonstrably not been obvious enough to stop people coming here with problems due to the Fedora modifications. That makes it not prominent enough from my perspective.
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.
My point about moral rights (see Wikapedia), is to assert the right to the integrity of the work. Removing functionality, or making library changes that will probably introduce bugs, could I think be interpreted as impinging on the integrity of the work. This is mere speculation on my part, but it fits well with what I see as the intention of moral rights, and I would hope that it might give the Fedora legal eagles something to chew on, when functionality is being materially affected by adherence to dogma. Since you are the ones shipping the modified version, I don't think it's my place to contact the Fedora legal team. regards, Graeme Gill.