Hi Jonas, On Thursday 03 February 2005 17:56, you wrote: > Holger: This ends on gammu-legal only, not the bugreport. Deliberate?
aehmmm, yes - on purpose - but on a wrong mission after reading two answers pointing me wrong on topic gnokii ;-) Re-including the bugreport now, as it turned out to be relevant. [Quoting a lot for the report... it's in the gammu-list-archive as well, btw:-] > On 03-02-2005 16:31, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Thursday 03 February 2005 16:08, you wrote: > >>Only the authors of Gnokii can solve legal issues of their own software. > >>The patch at gammu-legal is a _proposal_ made by the person unhappy with > >>Gnokii and not (anymore) part of Gnokii. Upstream may choose to adopt > >>that proposed patch... > > > > Hmmm... I think I have to agree. Theoretically. What you wrote makes > > sense. But... > > > >>Debian cannot "solve" this issue by patching copyright and/or licensing > >>notes of the upstream software. Only possible fixes is the following (as > >>I see it): > > > > Practically I disagree, Debian could patch upstream sources to alter > > licences which have been illegally modified by upstream. > > Nope. > > If the proposed patch (that has since been pointed out is not for Gnokii > at all, but let's just pretend throughout this argument) was to _revert_ > to original text then you are right. But two wrongs don't make a right: > Altering a possibly(!) wrong copyright and licensing snippet into > something completely new that speaks about the undocumentable past can > only rightfully be done by the author of the software. > > > But as it's also practical I would rather consider working with upstream > > to resolve this issue. (Which I tried with this thread but stupid me has > > mixed up gammu&gnokii) > > Oh well - The Gammu author did his best to mess those two, so I guess > your apology is implicitly accepted ;-) > > >> * Remove gnokii from the archive > >> * Wait for fix provided by upstream > >> * Consider this a non-bug and simply close this bugreport. > > > > IMHO option 3 is out of option. And if 2 doesn't happen, 1 will happen. > I agree. With the emphasis that the fix needs to be applied by upstream > (not the Debian maintainer). /me has just talked with the author on #gnokii - he said he'll fix the issue in the next release of gnokii. > >>P.S. > >>The very reason Gnokii can solve the issue differently than has been > >>judged the only solution technically possible for a similar issue of the > >>competing program Gammu is their use of a version control system. > > > > I don't get this at all. Could you please explain / rephrase in simpler > > english. Thanks. > > It was a hint regarding the issues with Gammu (that caused the author of > Gammu to claim similar issues was the case with the competitor Gnokii, > leading to this bugreport). I could possibly explain it, but the risk of > misintrepretation is too big. Please read the archive of gammu-legal... Ah, ok. Thanks. regards, Holger
pgp4yL36uzv9L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
