Uoti Urpala <uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi> writes: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:15:59 +0200 Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> wrote: >> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi> writes: >> >> > In what sense couldn't everyone modify the concatenated form? >> >> Perhaps if I frame my question from: >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978#90 >> >> in another way, I'll get an answer. > > Isn't this the separate issue Ansgar already mentioned in: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978#45
Ah, I'd missed Ansgar's mail it seems. Thanks for the pointer. I don't see that it is a separate issue though. If one repeatedly argues that something is just a case of concatenation, and therefore should be allowed, and it turns out not to be concatenation at all, then there's no real need to go into worrying if concatenation would have been OK. I can imagine some odd circumstances in which it might be OK to abandon the idea of starting from original source, but this one fails on so many fronts that I was just picking on the most obvious flaw. The fact that all the work is clearly being done in the original source is also pretty damning (I could only find two commits that were not just dumping whatever arrives from upstream, and I'm not convinced either of those were edits to the browserified source -- they look more like patching the upstream and re-doing the grunt bit). Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
