STJ,
FWIW, I think Hapless has the correct approach for Open Source software. He passed out a simple correction that anyone could make to their own files. If they chaged it, they would understand the change.
On the other hand you released a "version" called svn 684 but only included two files. This version is in a version system that doesn't exist except on your machine.
As best I can tell comparing to my SVN copy, these files are NOT the same as those in the k version repository and if I incorporate them into my svn, I potentially create a problem down the road. If Karl-Heinz modifies his version of these two files I would lose your changes and may not know why. If he doesn't change them but references something that you have now removed from those files, my build would fail. Either way, I would probably report it as a bug when, in fact, it was the result of changes from you that I mistakenly thought were part of the same branch.
Open Source means the source is available and modifiable by anyone. You are free to create a proper branch and continue maintaining and distributing it but if you are going to modify Karl-Heinz version of the code it would be far better if you had done it as Hapless did (the author was informed of the bug and left up to him when to include it in his official release) or JUST distributed the recompiled versions that would get replaced the next time a build is done.
This, of course, is just my opinion, but while you may be an experienced programmer, you have obviously never dealt with serious software maintenance and distribution.