Re: Patches, copyright, encryption
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:24:51AM -0600, Andy Zbikowski (Zibby) wrote:
> The copyright file has not been updated to include the patch. (Both
> rdesktop and the patch are released under the GPL)
>
> What should actually be done? Credit both in the copyright and give all
> the relevant information? Leave the copyright as is and keep the credits
> for the patch elsewhere? Other?
If the patch is a major addition, then you should mention it in the
copyright file.
> Question two: To include the patch, it became part of the diff file
> generated by dpkg-buildpackage. This seemed to be the easiest and most
> correct way of applying the patch to the package as the
> rdesktop_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz should be the same as the tarball downloaded
> from rdesktop.org. Is this the way source patching should be handled?
That's okay, yes.
> Question Three: rdesktop uses (and includes as part of the source
> distribution) arith.h & conf.h (Copyright (c) Martin Nicolay, 22.Nov. 1988
> ) as well as md5.h, md5_locl.h, rc4.h, rc4_locl.h, sha.h, and sha_locl.h
> from Eric Young's SSL implementation to implement the encryption
> algorithms used in the RDP protocol. Should documentation and license info
> for the crypto stuff be included in the deb? (if so how and where)
Yes, document them in the copyright file.
> The rdesktop author only included this note:
>
> The files in this directory implement the encryption algorithms used in
> the RDP protocol, and are subject to their respective licenses.
> RC4 may also be subject to patent restrictions in some countries.
>
> And finally, with the inclusion of the crypto stuff, should the resulting
> package be put into the X11 section in non-US, or can it remain with the
> main distribution.
Looks like non-US/main to me.
> Lastly are related to the ITP notice above, the package has been in
> preparation for 46 days. I e-mailed Sam Johnston who issued the wnpp bug
> about a week ago asking him how it was going, if he was still planning on
> creating this package, etc. I still haven't received a reply. I would like
> to see this package make it into Debian as I find it very useful, but I
> don't want to step on anyone's toes either. As stated above, I created the
> package the learn Debian packaging and for use on my personal machines. If
> Sam is going to build a package and submit it fine by me, but 46 days does
> seem excessive for building a single binary package with minimal
> documentation.
If he doesn't answer soon, get a sponsor to upload it for you.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: