I just came about this bug and I don't see that/how the problem from the original bug report was rectified.
While gnuplots license qualifies it as free software, that was not the concern of the original bug report. Gnuplots license demands: ------ * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the * support of your modified version, and * 4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base * software. ------ If you call gnuplot, you only get: gnuplot home: http://www.gnuplot.info faq, bugs, etc: type "help seeking-assistance" the gnu manpage tells you to run "help bugs" from within gnuplot. Running "help seeking-assistance" or "help bugs" only lists gnuplot resources, not the debian bug tracking system or the debian maintainer. One could argue, that the "primary contact" has already been given in the package description and the information when running gnuplot is only to "retain the original contact information". Was this your idea when closing the bug? I think it would be a simple change to have gnuplot print something like "Please report bugs as described in http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting, for bugs also found in the original version of gnuplot type 'help bugs'" There is another clause I don't see fulfilled, which is about the patches. Permission to * distribute binaries produced by compiling modified sources is granted, * provided you [...] * 2. add special version identification to distinguish your version * in addition to the base release version number, Calling gnuplot on squeeze just prints: G N U P L O T Version 4.4 patchlevel 0 according to the license I would expect it to read something like Version 4.4 patchlevel 0 with Debian patches, Debian patchlevel 1 or somesuch. Generally there seemed to be agreement (or at least no disagreement) that these changes were necessary, when this was discussed along with the original bugreport on debian-legal: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00220.html Description of lack-of-patch note from poster of original bugreport: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00207.html So maybe there was just some miscommunication in regard of this point? It's a shame we have to discuss this for so long, as the total amount of patches is so negligibly small... adding a patch to change the message will surely double the amount of changed lines :-/ (But I guess for the license it does not matter that there are only few and very small patches, anyway, that might change) Since this is from 2006 and I'm not totally sure that I did not overlook something, I will leave it to you to decide if you want to elevate the bug to "serious"//add patches for in-program text that clarifies about the "primary contact" and added patches or just comment on why you see it as "fixed" Cheers and sorry for any inconvenience if the misunderstanding was from my part, Iridos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
