Bug#84819: rdesktop
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Brad,
>
> Thanks for your interest. Yes I do indeed plan to package rdesktop... in
> fact I have a 1.0.0 package ready for action, however I've refrained from
> uploading it on the grounds that the author, Matt Chapman, assures me that
> some time in the not too distant future he will be merging the patches
> into a 1.1 release, and would rather I wait till then.
Hmm, would he have a problem with a patched version, or just with 1.0.0?
> As 1.0 is fairly broken without the patches I think it's probably worth
> the wait (unless I were to build a package with the patches which is
> likely to break versioning - any suggestions?). I really want to see a
> working rdesktop in the next release of Debian which probably means we
> should get something up there sooner rather than later.
I think a patched version ought to be fine. The "unified" series from
http://bibl4.oru.se/projects/rdesktop/ is pretty stable, and even works with
w2k server.
It shouldn't break versioning, as long as it's in the form 1.0.0-whatever.
> Your crypto patches (which make use of GMP in place of the german arith
> code) would be a welcome addition no doubt. The existing license appears
> to allow for non-commercial use only and thus violates DFSG.
Yeah, that's what I figured. The rest of the crypto code looks okay, but
IANAL...
I haven't really been following the debate about crypto export, so I don't
know what the us/non-us situation would be.
-brad
>
> - samj
>
> On Sat, 5 May 2001, Bradley Bell wrote:
>
> > Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop? I noticed that, though
> > it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license (crypto/arith.c
> > crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h). If you're interested, I've got a patch to
> > get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main. I've also got the whole
> > thing debianized, if you want to take a look. I'll have it all uploaded to
> > http://people.debian.org/~btb/src/rdesktop/ pretty soon.
> >
> > -brad
> >
>
Reply to: