From: Mark S. <Mar...@am...> - 2011-03-09 22:38:09
|
Is there an alternative/commercial friendly license for rdesktop? If not, can anyone suggest an another project? Thanks, Mark |
From: Linuxembarcado <ad...@li...> - 2011-03-09 23:01:00
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Em 09-03-2011 19:08, Mark Smith escreveu: > Is there an alternative/commercial friendly license for rdesktop? If > not, can anyone suggest an another project? Care to ellaborate? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk14AhcACgkQ2cB5Bt7H7YCq6ACeMLyufpalUSLRO/+XrKassolO Q2MAn1IQMNaAGe2Bryj0NHFbErjdCeTW =W2K7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Mark S. <Mar...@am...> - 2011-03-10 03:41:23
|
Ellaborate? OK. I am looking to add an RDP client to an embedded Linux product. The RDP feature is only a secondary feature of the product so there is a lot of proprietary features that can't be poluted with copy-left licenses. For example, imagine IE or Opera wanting to add a RDP plugin, obviously M$ or Opera would not be willing to expose their browser IP for the sake of a simple plug-in. Often, a GPL project has an alternative license that can be purchased for developers that need a commercial friendly license that doesn't have the copy-left polution. So my question is, does anyone know of a RDP implementation for Linux that is not copy-left, reguardless of whether it is "free" or not. Thanks, mark ________________________________________ From: Linuxembarcado [ad...@li...] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:41 PM To: rde...@li... Subject: Re: [rdesktop-devel] Alternative license? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Em 09-03-2011 19:08, Mark Smith escreveu: > Is there an alternative/commercial friendly license for rdesktop? If > not, can anyone suggest an another project? Care to ellaborate? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk14AhcACgkQ2cB5Bt7H7YCq6ACeMLyufpalUSLRO/+XrKassolO Q2MAn1IQMNaAGe2Bryj0NHFbErjdCeTW =W2K7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ rdesktop-devel mailing list rde...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdesktop-devel |
From: Linuxembarcado <ad...@li...> - 2011-03-10 03:53:27
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Em 10-03-2011 00:40, Mark Smith escreveu: > Ellaborate? OK. > > I am looking to add an RDP client to an embedded Linux product. The > RDP feature is only a secondary feature of the product so there is a > lot of proprietary features that can't be poluted with copy-left > licenses. For example, imagine IE or Opera wanting to add a RDP > plugin, obviously M$ or Opera would not be willing to expose their > browser IP for the sake of a simple plug-in. > > Often, a GPL project has an alternative license that can be purchased > for developers that need a commercial friendly license that doesn't > have the copy-left polution. > > So my question is, does anyone know of a RDP implementation for Linux > that is not copy-left, reguardless of whether it is "free" or not. > I see. AFAIK, rdesktop does not have anything like that. The FreeRDP project has an Apache licence that may be more useful for you. Personally, I don't like this kind of arrangement but if the code owners say it's fine, than it's fine. []s Adilson. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk14Sx0ACgkQ2cB5Bt7H7YDpFwCg4EFksppBDn+QAvMo4DjSNQn1 9LEAnRhpnfOK1ZsVoOOJKRowottC/6kE =rm+j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Peter Å. <as...@ce...> - 2011-03-10 07:51:06
|
>> I am looking to add an RDP client to an embedded Linux product. The >> RDP feature is only a secondary feature of the product so there is a >> lot of proprietary features that can't be poluted with copy-left >> licenses. If you are using Linux, you already have GPL code in your product. rdesktop also uses GPL. So how is this a problem? >> Often, a GPL project has an alternative license that can be purchased >> for developers that need a commercial friendly license that doesn't >> have the copy-left polution. This is not the case with rdesktop. Just as with Linux, there are many authors and just getting in touch with them all (to discuss alternative licensing) would be very difficult. >> So my question is, does anyone know of a RDP implementation for Linux >> that is not copy-left, reguardless of whether it is "free" or not. I think this is off topic for this list. > I see. AFAIK, rdesktop does not have anything like that. The FreeRDP > project has an Apache licence that may be more useful for you. Wrong. FreeRDP is also GPL licensed, at least according to https://sourceforge.net/projects/freerdp/. It must be, since it's a fork of rdesktop. Regards, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Linuxembarcado <ad...@li...> - 2011-03-10 09:21:47
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Em 10-03-2011 04:50, Peter Åstrand escreveu: > > Wrong. FreeRDP is also GPL licensed, at least according to > https://sourceforge.net/projects/freerdp/. It must be, since it's a fork > of rdesktop. > Funny. I've been following the FreeRDP maling list for a while and one of the discussions in the last few weeks was exactly the change to Apache. As I am not contributing to the project directly, I haven't folowed in great detail so I am probably mistaken, sorry. Adilson. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk14mBIACgkQ2cB5Bt7H7YAnggCfdkEj1c572dn6gSV2JbIASUMU LBkAnj+OpytkS1P87HraktJHyZnclqvC =Nhfo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Brad H. <br...@fr...> - 2011-03-10 11:02:54
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:21:25 pm Linuxembarcado wrote: > Em 10-03-2011 04:50, Peter Åstrand escreveu: > > Wrong. FreeRDP is also GPL licensed, at least according to > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/freerdp/. It must be, since it's a fork > > of rdesktop. > > Funny. I've been following the FreeRDP maling list for a while and one > of the discussions in the last few weeks was exactly the change to > Apache. As I am not contributing to the project directly, I haven't > folowed in great detail so I am probably mistaken, sorry. [Adding freerdp-devel, hope that doesn't break too badly] I see a thread that starts off with one of the FreeRDP license developers announcing a relicense the code. http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=AANLkTinOeC2iVqNf0Kxq- nsm6sPdQbNdYoeWGBjVzfx1%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=freerdp-devel I'm not sure how that can be done though, since it appears to still contain code from rdesktop. Is the plan to rewrite the code with GPL headers before version 0.9? Does this definitely make it not-derivative? My read of the GPL is that you'd need approval from anyone with a non-trivial content that might still be included in freerdp. Brad |
From: Marc-André M. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-03-10 14:50:07
|
Hi Brad, On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Brad Hards <br...@fr...> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:21:25 pm Linuxembarcado wrote: > > Em 10-03-2011 04:50, Peter Åstrand escreveu: > > > Wrong. FreeRDP is also GPL licensed, at least according to > > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/freerdp/. It must be, since it's a > fork > > > of rdesktop. > > > > Funny. I've been following the FreeRDP maling list for a while and one > > of the discussions in the last few weeks was exactly the change to > > Apache. As I am not contributing to the project directly, I haven't > > folowed in great detail so I am probably mistaken, sorry. > [Adding freerdp-devel, hope that doesn't break too badly] > > I see a thread that starts off with one of the FreeRDP license developers > announcing a relicense the code. > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=AANLkTinOeC2iVqNf0Kxq- > nsm6sPdQbNdYoeWGBjVzfx1%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=freerdp-devel > > I'm not sure how that can be done though, since it appears to still contain > code from rdesktop. Is the plan to rewrite the code with GPL headers before > version 0.9? > > Does this definitely make it not-derivative? My read of the GPL is that > you'd > need approval from anyone with a non-trivial content that might still be > included in freerdp. A lot of code in FreeRDP has been rewritten, but yes, there are some parts of code left from rdesktop. I have asked all the FreeRDP contributors + rdesktop contributors that had their code in FreeRDP. The largest portions of code carried from rdesktop were from Matthew Chapman. It was hard to get in touch with him, but I managed to and he agreed to relicense his code. Other people that have code licensed in rdesktop that I got their agreement were Jay and Jeroen. Obviously, I had to get the agreement from all the FreeRDP contributors. If you feel you've been forgotten, please tell us so, we haven't released 0.9 yet. > > Brad > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization - today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d > _______________________________________________ > Freerdp-devel mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel > |
From: Peter Å. <as...@ce...> - 2011-03-10 17:10:05
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > A lot of code in FreeRDP has been rewritten, but yes, there are some parts of code left from rdesktop. I have asked all the > FreeRDP contributors + rdesktop contributors that had their code in FreeRDP. The largest portions of code carried from > rdesktop were from Matthew Chapman. It was hard to get in touch with him, but I managed to and he agreed to relicense his > code. Other people that have code licensed in rdesktop that I got their agreement were Jay and Jeroen. Obviously, I had to > get the agreement from all the FreeRDP contributors. If you feel you've been forgotten, please tell us so, we haven't > released 0.9 yet. Well, Cendio has not agreed to this license change. If you think that all of our code has been replaced, why are Cendio developers still listed in the AUTHORS file? Assuming that the GIT version is the correct one... A quick check indicates that there are indeed code left from us. Two examples: * The RDPSND recording support (rdpsnd_flush_record etc). rdpsnd.c even still carries this copyright notice: Copyright 2006-2008 Pierre Ossman <os...@ce...> for Cendio AB And the license header still claims GPL! * mwm_hide_decorations() was written by me, it has obviously been copied. There are likely much more code. I've been submitting code to the rdesktop project for more than 8 years. In total, I've done 512 commits. Pierre has done another 62 and Erik Forsberg has done another 76. Out of the total number of commits (1304), this is exactly 50%. Even if you rewrite every single line that we have comitted, I think one can argue that FreeRDP is based on our copyrighted code. IANAL and I haven't checked with our lawyer, but too me it seems impossible to relicense rdesktop without our approval. Rgds, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Jay S. <jay...@gm...> - 2011-03-10 19:23:42
|
> Well, Cendio has not agreed to this license change. If you think that all of > our code has been replaced, why are Cendio developers still listed in the > AUTHORS file? Assuming that the GIT version is the correct one... The plan from the beginning was to remove Cendio code. Remember Peter it is because of you that FreeRDP exists in the first place. We have made some amazing progress in FreeRDP. We have some of the hardest working, talented developers I've ever worked with. I'm the longest running contributors to open source RDP software via rdesktop, xrdp, and FreeRDP. From my experience, this is a necessary change. The GPL does not work well in the situations an RDP client needs to run. The rdesktop plugins design is one example, running FreeRDP as a web browser plugin is another. The OpenSSL exception is another. The list goes on and on. I want to develop the best RDP client possible and the GPL does not allow that. Jay |
From: Peter Å. <as...@ce...> - 2011-03-14 08:12:00
|
>> Well, Cendio has not agreed to this license change. If you think that all of >> our code has been replaced, why are Cendio developers still listed in the >> AUTHORS file? Assuming that the GIT version is the correct one... > > The plan from the beginning was to remove Cendio code. Remember Peter > it is because of you that FreeRDP exists in the first place. No, I don't remember that. In fact, I haven't seen any motivation why the FreeRDP project was created in the first place. I've looked at http://www.freerdp.com but I don't see any background information there either. IMHO, if you were unhappy about any aspect of the rdesktop project, I think it would have been much better to discuss this *before* creating a fork. I also fail to understand why it was an explicit goal to "remove Cendio code". > We have made some amazing progress in FreeRDP. We have some of the > hardest working, talented developers I've ever worked with. Sad that you/they do not want to contribute to rdesktop then. With two projects, I think we are duplicating efforts. In general, unless the goal of two projects are fundamentally different, I think you can achieve more by working together. The license question could be such an issue, but again, I haven't seen the motivation. Things would have been much clearer if FreeRDP had announced itself with an Open Letter or something like that, like we did with TigerVNC: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.tight-vnc.general/8610/ > I'm the longest running contributors to open source RDP software via > rdesktop, xrdp, and FreeRDP. From my experience, this is a necessary > change. The GPL does not work well in the situations an RDP client > needs to run. The rdesktop plugins design is one example, running > FreeRDP as a web browser plugin is another. The OpenSSL exception is > another. The list goes on and on. > > I want to develop the best RDP client possible and the GPL does not > allow that. I don't agree. Wrt plugins, there's really no reason why these cannot run out of process. Running native code such as RDP clients as browser plugins is IMHO generally a bad idea, but I don't think that GPL would prevent this. Compare with VLC, which is also GPL. We can also deal with OpenSSL. I mean, this is not a new problem. There are tons of GPL code out there that needs encryption. This can be handled. Saying that "we cannot use GPL because we need encryption" seems strange to me. I think that GPL is the best license for a rdesktop-like project. rdesktop unfortunately has a history where many people and organizations are using the code, but very few give something back. Many terminal vendors, for example IGEL, and shipping a heavily modifed version of rdesktop. They are not contributing these changes back to the rdesktop project, but due to the GPL license, end users *are* able to retrieve the source and modifications. With an Apache-style license, the development done by such vendors will never be released and thus will never reach the upstream / Open Source project. I fail to see how helps you to "develop the best RDP client possible". Instead, you will end up with not just one but multiple more or less incompatible forks, one from every vendor. Rgds, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Gregory S. <gr...@2x...> - 2011-03-14 14:19:07
|
On 14 March 2011 09:11, Peter Åstrand <as...@ce...> wrote: > >>> Well, Cendio has not agreed to this license change. If you think that all >>> of >>> our code has been replaced, why are Cendio developers still listed in the >>> AUTHORS file? Assuming that the GIT version is the correct one... >> >> The plan from the beginning was to remove Cendio code. Remember Peter >> it is because of you that FreeRDP exists in the first place. > > No, I don't remember that. In fact, I haven't seen any motivation why the > FreeRDP project was created in the first place. I've looked at > http://www.freerdp.com but I don't see any background information there > either. IMHO, if you were unhappy about any aspect of the rdesktop project, > I think it would have been much better to discuss this *before* creating a > fork. I also fail to understand why it was an explicit goal to "remove > Cendio code". > > >> We have made some amazing progress in FreeRDP. We have some of the >> hardest working, talented developers I've ever worked with. > > Sad that you/they do not want to contribute to rdesktop then. With two > projects, I think we are duplicating efforts. In general, unless the goal of > two projects are fundamentally different, I think you can achieve more by > working together. > > The license question could be such an issue, but again, I haven't seen the > motivation. Things would have been much clearer if FreeRDP had announced > itself with an Open Letter or something like that, like we did with > TigerVNC: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.tight-vnc.general/8610/ > > >> I'm the longest running contributors to open source RDP software via >> rdesktop, xrdp, and FreeRDP. From my experience, this is a necessary >> change. The GPL does not work well in the situations an RDP client needs to >> run. The rdesktop plugins design is one example, running FreeRDP as a web >> browser plugin is another. The OpenSSL exception is another. The list goes >> on and on. >> >> I want to develop the best RDP client possible and the GPL does not allow >> that. > > I don't agree. Wrt plugins, there's really no reason why these cannot run > out of process. Running native code such as RDP clients as browser plugins > is IMHO generally a bad idea, but I don't think that GPL would prevent this. > Compare with VLC, which is also GPL. We can also deal with OpenSSL. I mean, > this is not a new problem. There are tons of GPL code out there that needs > encryption. This can be handled. Saying that "we cannot use GPL because we > need encryption" seems strange to me. > > > I think that GPL is the best license for a rdesktop-like project. rdesktop > unfortunately has a history where many people and organizations are using > the code, but very few give something back. Many terminal vendors, for > example IGEL, and shipping a heavily modifed version of rdesktop. They are > not contributing these changes back to the rdesktop project, but due to the > GPL license, end users *are* able to retrieve the source and modifications. > With an Apache-style license, the development done by such vendors will > never be released and thus will never reach the upstream / Open Source > project. I fail to see how helps you to "develop the best RDP client > possible". Instead, you will end up with not just one but multiple more or > less incompatible forks, one from every vendor. > > > Rgds, --- > Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer > Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com > Wallenbergs gata 4 > 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization - today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d > _______________________________________________ > rdesktop-devel mailing list > rde...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdesktop-devel > > Hello, I do not use rdesktop or freerdp clients, but closely follow development change log of both projects. freerdp project was actually announced in rdesktop-devel list: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.rdesktop.devel/3226 and the reason cleanly states: "rdesktop not being fixed up quick enough" I saw patches laying in rdesktop bugzilla for a while and they were not integrated into rdesktop. On the other hand, if there is a new implementation of existing feature in rdesktop, how it might be tested and integrated into rdesktop by community? For example freerdp project provides new way of keyboard handling. >From observer point of view, I see that rdesktop features are being decided by only Cendio and not the community. Sorry, may be I am wrong, but that is an impression I've got and glad that freerdp project exists and is rapidly growing. Gregory Smirnov, cross-platform RDP Clients developer |
From: Peter Å. <as...@ce...> - 2011-03-14 14:52:38
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Gregory Smirnov wrote: > freerdp project was actually announced in rdesktop-devel list: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.rdesktop.devel/3226 > > and the reason cleanly states: "rdesktop not being fixed up quick enough" As far as I understand, Michael Adams is not a FreeRDP developer, so I don't consider that email as any "official" announcement of the project. > I saw patches laying in rdesktop bugzilla for a while and they were > not integrated into rdesktop. On the other hand, if there is a new > implementation of existing feature in rdesktop, how it might be tested > and integrated into rdesktop by community? For example freerdp project > provides new way of keyboard handling. > >> From observer point of view, I see that rdesktop features are being > decided by only Cendio and not the community. Sorry, may be I am > wrong, but that is an impression I've got and glad that freerdp > project exists and is rapidly growing. The main problem is that rdesktop lacks active developers. Cendio also contributes to many other projects, so we are not able to spend much time on rdesktop. This is a bad situation which is not at all wanted from our side. In other words, more developers are wanted. We do not want to block contribution. Rgds, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Jay S. <jay...@gm...> - 2011-03-15 02:53:59
|
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Peter Åstrand <as...@ce...> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Gregory Smirnov wrote: > >> freerdp project was actually announced in rdesktop-devel list: >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.rdesktop.devel/3226 >> >> and the reason cleanly states: "rdesktop not being fixed up quick enough" > > As far as I understand, Michael Adams is not a FreeRDP developer, so I don't > consider that email as any "official" announcement of the project. Why does it matter that Michael is not on the team? I sent a message to the rdesktop-team mailing list on 05/04/2010. FreeRDP has been mentioned several times on rdesktop-devel. Jay |
From: Vic L. <ll...@16...> - 2011-03-15 03:54:11
|
On 03/14/2011 10:52 PM, Peter Åstrand wrote: > The main problem is that rdesktop lacks active developers. I might be wrong, but I really feel that a lot of developers are (or were) willing to contribute to rdesktop, but many of them are just being ignored. For example myself. 2 years ago I started to work on separating an RDP library from rdesktop UI, and almost done. I sent my idea but got no response from rdesktop. I will translate such silence as "No thanks, it's too huge re-architecture and we don't want it (because we don't need it)". Then I was introduced to FreeRDP and I was happy to see my idea was fully aligned with their goal, and I was happy to join them. So back to the question of the topic: was it necessary to fork rdesktop? From the FreeRDP source codes I found the answer is yes. Vic |
From: Marc-André M. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-03-14 16:30:28
|
Hi Gregory, Hello, > > I do not use rdesktop or freerdp clients, but closely follow > development change log of both projects. > > freerdp project was actually announced in rdesktop-devel list: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.rdesktop.devel/3226 > > and the reason cleanly states: "rdesktop not being fixed up quick enough" > I see bugs that have been fixed for a long time in FreeRDP still being there... As for feature requests, I think it's much worse. May I mention that I have implemented both TLS and NLA support in FreeRDP? Someone submitted a patch for NLA support in rdesktop a couple of months ago, requiring to build against libsamba. I can perfectly see why it wasn't included in the rdesktop (the dependency is way too big), but the end result is still the same: after all those years, people can't use rdesktop with an RDP server that enforces NLA usage. > > I saw patches laying in rdesktop bugzilla for a while and they were > not integrated into rdesktop. On the other hand, if there is a new > implementation of existing feature in rdesktop, how it might be tested > and integrated into rdesktop by community? For example freerdp project > provides new way of keyboard handling. > Keyboard handling was the reason why I started working on my own set of patches for rdesktop. I don't want to re-open the two year old discussion on the matter, but since FreeRDP was started, we often got new users simply because they could use their keyboard properly, not to mention the multiple thanks from desperate users that need to use RDP from Linux daily. > > >From observer point of view, I see that rdesktop features are being > decided by only Cendio and not the community. Sorry, may be I am > wrong, but that is an impression I've got and glad that freerdp > project exists and is rapidly growing. > I was given the same impression back when I first tried contributing to rdesktop, and I don't think I am alone thinking that. If you think this impression is totally wrong, maybe you should work on projecting a different image to the community, because that's what you project. > > Gregory Smirnov, > cross-platform RDP Clients developer > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization - today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d > _______________________________________________ > rdesktop-devel mailing list > rde...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdesktop-devel > |
From: Peter Å. <as...@ce...> - 2011-03-15 06:49:12
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Keyboard handling was the reason why I started working on my own set of > patches for rdesktop. I don't want to re-open the two year old > discussion on the matter, but since FreeRDP was started, we often got Yes, I remember the discussion we had. You have to forgive me for being a developer: I have an opinion on how it should be done; which technical solution is the best. You claimed that your solution was better, I disagreed. No consensus was reached and no majority pushed your solution. Matt didn't step in. The existing implementation stayed. I don't see any particular strange about this process, it happens all the time in the open source community. Did you really expect me to remove my keyboard implementation and replace it with yours even though I did not think it was better? Now, if you believed that your implementation really was/is better, you could have maintained it even though we did not initially accept the patch. If I remember correctly, we even offered you a separate Subversion branch. If users really preferred that implementation, it would sooner or later get enough supporters so that we could replace the existing one with yours. Rgds, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Marc-André M. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-03-15 07:18:48
|
Hi Peter, On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Peter Åstrand <as...@ce...> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > > Keyboard handling was the reason why I started working on my own set of >> patches for rdesktop. I don't want to re-open the two year old discussion on >> the matter, but since FreeRDP was started, we often got >> > > Yes, I remember the discussion we had. You have to forgive me for being a > developer: I have an opinion on how it should be done; which technical > solution is the best. You claimed that your solution was better, I > disagreed. No consensus was reached and no majority pushed your solution. > Matt didn't step in. The existing implementation stayed. > Personally, I don't care. I was just saying that in practice, my solution brought us more users, for the simple reason that your solution failed. I'm not saying my solution is flawless, because it has its own flaws, just like yours has. I took the time to document it here: http://www.freerdp.com/wiki/doku.php?id=keyboard > > I don't see any particular strange about this process, it happens all the > time in the open source community. Did you really expect me to remove my > keyboard implementation and replace it with yours even though I did not > think it was better? > Yes, there was something strange: you didn't seem to truly understand the subject. Maybe you did, but you really failed to show it. Keyboard input is a very complex topic that can become confusing very quickly, I agree, but from the discussion we had I don't see how you were proving your point, really. I'm not saying you should use my code, because if you wanted to use it you should have done it two years ago, all I'm saying is that even though this is long behind me people still thank me today for fixing their keyboard problems. Maybe that's a hint that it's not a bad idea after all. > > Now, if you believed that your implementation really was/is better, you > could have maintained it even though we did not initially accept the patch. > If I remember correctly, we even offered you a separate Subversion branch. > If users really preferred that implementation, it would sooner or later get > enough supporters so that we could replace the existing one with yours. First, I was not offered a separate subversion branch. The problem with every contributor maintaining their own set of patches is that it really slows down development efforts. Instead, I got that email from Jay saying that he liked my idea of forking, which I did. If you can consider me starting my own fork being "maintaining my own implementation, that would sooner or later get enough supporters", well, that's what happened. We forked. People liked it, and ditched rdesktop to work on FreeRDP instead. I'm sorry to be proving you wrong here, but FreeRDP is nothing of a one-man show: there's no way it would have gotten this far without all the efforts from the FreeRDP developers that joined after me. Actually, Peter, I am very thankful: for the last couple of years, there was a lot of interest in developing an RDP client, but rdesktop failed to properly receive those contributors. All it took was a fork to get all those contributors willing to spend all their time working on a good RDP client. You've simply made my life awesome by keeping all those people from being fully accepted until I open my door wide open for them to come in and contribute. What else can I say? You can justify yourself all that you want, just look at freerdp-devel and rdesktop-devel daily activity: one of them is filled with discussions, and the other one with feature or bug requests half the time. I let you guess which one is which. > > > > Rgds, --- > Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer > Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com > Wallenbergs gata 4 > 583 30 Linköping Phone: <%2B46-13-21%2046%2000>+46-13-21 46 00 > |
From: Peter Å. <as...@ce...> - 2011-03-15 07:41:22
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Yes, I remember the discussion we had. You have to forgive me for being a developer: I have an opinion on how it should > be done; which technical solution is the best. You claimed that your solution was better, I disagreed. No consensus was > reached and no majority pushed your solution. Matt didn't step in. The existing implementation stayed. > > > Personally, I don't care. Of course you do. We all want to develop the best code and attract many users. > I was just saying that in practice, my solution brought us more users, Are you saying that you have some statistics that indicates that FreeRDP is more popular than rdesktop? > I don't see any particular strange about this process, it happens all the time in the open source community. Did > you really expect me to remove my keyboard implementation and replace it with yours even though I did not think > it was better? > > > Yes, there was something strange: you didn't seem to truly understand the subject. Maybe you did, but you really failed to > show it. Forgive me for not being perfect... > First, I was not offered a separate subversion branch. The problem with every contributor maintaining their own set of > patches is that it really slows down development efforts. Instead, I got that email from Jay saying that he liked my idea of > forking, which I did. If you can consider me starting my own fork being "maintaining my own implementation, that would sooner > or later get enough supporters", well, that's what happened. We forked. People liked it, and ditched rdesktop to work on I was not suggesting a complete fork or maintaining many out of tree patches. The idea was to have *only* the alternative keyboard implementation outside the rdesktop trunk, until a majority wanted it. > Actually, Peter, I am very thankful: for the last couple of years, there was a lot of interest in developing an RDP client, > but rdesktop failed to properly receive those contributors. All it took was a fork to get all those contributors willing to > spend all their time working on a good RDP client. You've simply made my life awesome by keeping all those people from being > fully accepted until I open my door wide open for them to come in and contribute. What else can I say? You can justify > yourself all that you want, just look at freerdp-devel and rdesktop-devel daily activity: one of them is filled with > discussions, and the other one with feature or bug requests half the time. I let you guess which one is which. Don't celebrate yet. If we forget about ourselves for a moment and take on the community and user perspective, I don't think the current situation is very good. The developer base is divided. The feature set is divided, with many features only available in one version. The legal status of the FreeRDP license change is still unclear, but if the migration to the Apache license is done, these two similar projects cannot share code. Many distributions and vendors are currently shipping rdesktop. They now need to choose between two similar projects, and possible migrate to FreeRDP. I've worked with software long enough so I know that even if this is just a matter of changing the package names and documentation, this may take a substantial amount of time. Rgds, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Vic L. <ll...@16...> - 2011-03-15 09:45:06
|
On 03/15/2011 03:41 PM, Peter Åstrand wrote: > Are you saying that you have some statistics that indicates that FreeRDP > is more popular than rdesktop? It might not be yet at this moment, but I believe it will be. If rdesktop is not a Cendio project, it's probably the time that you should seriously take a look at what has been done in FreeRDP, and listen to users and other developers; then you might have a different view on these two projects. Vic |
From: Roger H. <rog...@nt...> - 2011-03-15 20:27:53
|
unsubscribe On 14/03/2011 08:11, Peter Åstrand wrote: > >>> Well, Cendio has not agreed to this license change. If you think that >>> all of >>> our code has been replaced, why are Cendio developers still listed in >>> the >>> AUTHORS file? Assuming that the GIT version is the correct one... >> >> The plan from the beginning was to remove Cendio code. Remember Peter >> it is because of you that FreeRDP exists in the first place. > > No, I don't remember that. In fact, I haven't seen any motivation why > the FreeRDP project was created in the first place. I've looked at > http://www.freerdp.com but I don't see any background information there > either. IMHO, if you were unhappy about any aspect of the rdesktop > project, I think it would have been much better to discuss this *before* > creating a fork. I also fail to understand why it was an explicit goal > to "remove Cendio code". > > >> We have made some amazing progress in FreeRDP. We have some of the >> hardest working, talented developers I've ever worked with. > > Sad that you/they do not want to contribute to rdesktop then. With two > projects, I think we are duplicating efforts. In general, unless the > goal of two projects are fundamentally different, I think you can > achieve more by working together. > > The license question could be such an issue, but again, I haven't seen > the motivation. Things would have been much clearer if FreeRDP had > announced itself with an Open Letter or something like that, like we did > with TigerVNC: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.tight-vnc.general/8610/ > > >> I'm the longest running contributors to open source RDP software via >> rdesktop, xrdp, and FreeRDP. From my experience, this is a necessary >> change. The GPL does not work well in the situations an RDP client >> needs to run. The rdesktop plugins design is one example, running >> FreeRDP as a web browser plugin is another. The OpenSSL exception is >> another. The list goes on and on. >> >> I want to develop the best RDP client possible and the GPL does not >> allow that. > > I don't agree. Wrt plugins, there's really no reason why these cannot > run out of process. Running native code such as RDP clients as browser > plugins is IMHO generally a bad idea, but I don't think that GPL would > prevent this. Compare with VLC, which is also GPL. We can also deal with > OpenSSL. I mean, this is not a new problem. There are tons of GPL code > out there that needs encryption. This can be handled. Saying that "we > cannot use GPL because we need encryption" seems strange to me. > > > I think that GPL is the best license for a rdesktop-like project. > rdesktop unfortunately has a history where many people and organizations > are using the code, but very few give something back. Many terminal > vendors, for example IGEL, and shipping a heavily modifed version of > rdesktop. They are not contributing these changes back to the rdesktop > project, but due to the GPL license, end users *are* able to retrieve > the source and modifications. With an Apache-style license, the > development done by such vendors will never be released and thus will > never reach the upstream / Open Source project. I fail to see how helps > you to "develop the best RDP client possible". Instead, you will end up > with not just one but multiple more or less incompatible forks, one from > every vendor. > > > Rgds, --- > Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer > Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com > Wallenbergs gata 4 > 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization - today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d > > > > _______________________________________________ > rdesktop-devel mailing list > rde...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdesktop-devel |
From: Mark S. <Mar...@am...> - 2011-03-10 14:40:22
|
Yes, I have GPL in my product, but not in my application. I would need to directly link to rdesktop which would contaminate my code with the copy-left. Thanks anyway, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Peter Åstrand [mailto:as...@ce...] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:51 AM To: Linuxembarcado Cc: Mark Smith; rde...@li... Subject: Re: [rdesktop-devel] Alternative license? >> I am looking to add an RDP client to an embedded Linux product. The >> RDP feature is only a secondary feature of the product so there is a >> lot of proprietary features that can't be poluted with copy-left >> licenses. If you are using Linux, you already have GPL code in your product. rdesktop also uses GPL. So how is this a problem? >> Often, a GPL project has an alternative license that can be purchased >> for developers that need a commercial friendly license that doesn't >> have the copy-left polution. This is not the case with rdesktop. Just as with Linux, there are many authors and just getting in touch with them all (to discuss alternative licensing) would be very difficult. >> So my question is, does anyone know of a RDP implementation for Linux >> that is not copy-left, reguardless of whether it is "free" or not. I think this is off topic for this list. > I see. AFAIK, rdesktop does not have anything like that. The FreeRDP > project has an Apache licence that may be more useful for you. Wrong. FreeRDP is also GPL licensed, at least according to https://sourceforge.net/projects/freerdp/. It must be, since it's a fork of rdesktop. Regards, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Peter Å. <as...@ce...> - 2011-03-10 16:45:18
|
> Yes, I have GPL in my product, but not in my application. I would need > to directly link to rdesktop which would contaminate my code with the > copy-left. I see. This is exactly what we want to prevent. You need to look for another software, then. Rgds, --- Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
From: Marc-André M. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-03-10 18:17:01
|
Hi Peter, On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Peter Åstrand <as...@ce...> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > > A lot of code in FreeRDP has been rewritten, but yes, there are some parts >> of code left from rdesktop. I have asked all the >> FreeRDP contributors + rdesktop contributors that had their code in >> FreeRDP. The largest portions of code carried from >> rdesktop were from Matthew Chapman. It was hard to get in touch with him, >> but I managed to and he agreed to relicense his >> code. Other people that have code licensed in rdesktop that I got their >> agreement were Jay and Jeroen. Obviously, I had to >> get the agreement from all the FreeRDP contributors. If you feel you've >> been forgotten, please tell us so, we haven't >> released 0.9 yet. >> > > Well, Cendio has not agreed to this license change. If you think that all > of our code has been replaced, why are Cendio developers still listed in the > AUTHORS file? Assuming that the GIT version is the correct one... > Let me clarify the situation: we are "pretty much done" with the license change, but there might be some bits here and there that we need to clear before releasing 0.9 officially as Apache License 2.0. As for the AUTHORS file, we will remove your names once we make sure none of your code is left. > > A quick check indicates that there are indeed code left from us. Two > examples: > > * The RDPSND recording support (rdpsnd_flush_record etc). rdpsnd.c even > still carries this copyright notice: > > Copyright 2006-2008 Pierre Ossman <os...@ce...> for Cendio AB > > And the license header still claims GPL! > Actually, rdpsnd.c is not even used any more. One of our developers reported this unused file just a few days ago: http://tinyurl.com/4wbhnvm Since we're not using it, it is just a leftover that we will remove. > > > * mwm_hide_decorations() was written by me, it has obviously been copied. > Ok, we'll fix this. > > > There are likely much more code. I've been submitting code to the rdesktop > project for more than 8 years. In total, I've done 512 commits. Pierre has > done another 62 and Erik Forsberg has done another 76. Out of the total > number of commits (1304), this is exactly 50%. Even if you rewrite every > single line that we have comitted, I think one can argue that FreeRDP is > based on our copyrighted code. IANAL and I haven't checked with our lawyer, > but too me it seems impossible to relicense rdesktop without our approval. > Not if we either get rid of all your submissions, or rewrite them. I encourage you to go ahead and verify that nothing you can claim yours is left in our code base, we will willingly respect your right as copyright holder. > > > Rgds, --- > > Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer > Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com > Wallenbergs gata 4 > 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 > |
From: Marc-André M. <mar...@gm...> - 2011-03-10 18:25:57
|
As a matter of fact, I have just removed some of the unused files carried over from rdesktop: channels/rdpdr/smartcard/scard.c + .h channels/rdpsnd/rdpsnd.c + .h We will handle mwm_hide_decorations() before releasing 0.9. Please go through our code base to verify what would be left. Once you find nothing left, we'll remove your names from our AUTHORS file. Please note that I am talking of removing your code since you do not seem to be in agreement with a license change to Apache License 2.0, making your copyrighted code unusable for us beyond our license change. On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Marc-André Moreau < mar...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Peter Åstrand <as...@ce...> wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Marc-André Moreau wrote: >> >> A lot of code in FreeRDP has been rewritten, but yes, there are some >>> parts of code left from rdesktop. I have asked all the >>> FreeRDP contributors + rdesktop contributors that had their code in >>> FreeRDP. The largest portions of code carried from >>> rdesktop were from Matthew Chapman. It was hard to get in touch with him, >>> but I managed to and he agreed to relicense his >>> code. Other people that have code licensed in rdesktop that I got their >>> agreement were Jay and Jeroen. Obviously, I had to >>> get the agreement from all the FreeRDP contributors. If you feel you've >>> been forgotten, please tell us so, we haven't >>> released 0.9 yet. >>> >> >> Well, Cendio has not agreed to this license change. If you think that all >> of our code has been replaced, why are Cendio developers still listed in the >> AUTHORS file? Assuming that the GIT version is the correct one... >> > > Let me clarify the situation: we are "pretty much done" with the license > change, but there might be some bits here and there that we need to clear > before releasing 0.9 officially as Apache License 2.0. As for the AUTHORS > file, we will remove your names once we make sure none of your code is > left. > >> >> A quick check indicates that there are indeed code left from us. Two >> examples: >> >> * The RDPSND recording support (rdpsnd_flush_record etc). rdpsnd.c even >> still carries this copyright notice: >> >> Copyright 2006-2008 Pierre Ossman <os...@ce...> for Cendio AB >> >> And the license header still claims GPL! >> > > Actually, rdpsnd.c is not even used any more. One of our developers > reported this unused file just a few days ago: http://tinyurl.com/4wbhnvm > > Since we're not using it, it is just a leftover that we will remove. > >> >> >> * mwm_hide_decorations() was written by me, it has obviously been copied. >> > > Ok, we'll fix this. > >> >> >> There are likely much more code. I've been submitting code to the rdesktop >> project for more than 8 years. In total, I've done 512 commits. Pierre has >> done another 62 and Erik Forsberg has done another 76. Out of the total >> number of commits (1304), this is exactly 50%. Even if you rewrite every >> single line that we have comitted, I think one can argue that FreeRDP is >> based on our copyrighted code. IANAL and I haven't checked with our lawyer, >> but too me it seems impossible to relicense rdesktop without our approval. >> > > Not if we either get rid of all your submissions, or rewrite them. I > encourage you to go ahead and verify that nothing you can claim yours is > left in our code base, we will willingly respect your right as copyright > holder. > >> >> >> Rgds, --- >> >> Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer >> Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com >> Wallenbergs gata 4 >> 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 >> > > |