Patches, copyright, encryption
I've been working on packaging rdesktop (http://www.rdesktop.org, a open
source Windows NT/2000 Terminal Services Client) After getting into it a
bit I noticed someone has previously announced an ITP.
( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=84819 )
Well, that's not stopping me since my goal was learning how to package
stuff, not produce a package for distribution.
Currently, rdesktop isn't all that useful without the patch obtained from
http://bibl4.oru.se/projects/rdesktop/ In the package that I have built, I
noted that the patch was applied in the changelog and the README.Debian.
The patch itself, as well as it's readme files and a credits list
(extracted from the diff by myself) are included as documentation. 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?
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?
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) 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.
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 you're not bored outta your skull by now,
what I've done so far is online at
http://www.ringworld.org/~zibby/linux/rdesktop
Feel free to drop by and check things out.
Thanks for your time!
| Andrew S. Zbikowski | Home: 763.591.0977 |
| http://www.ringworld.org | Work: 763.428.9119 |
| http://www.itouthouse.com | PCS: 612.306.6055 |
| When in danger, or in doubt, |
| run in circles, scream and shout! |
Reply to: