RepoPilot

rustdesk/rustdesk vs tw93/pake

rustdesk/rustdesk shows stronger signals overall

As of September 2026, rustdesk shows healthier maintenance signals than pake. rustdesk rates Healthy overall while pake rates Mixed. rustdesk was committed to 3 days ago with 32+ active contributors, while pake was committed to 1 week ago with 15+ active contributors. rustdesk is AGPL-3.0-licensed while pake is GPL-3.0-licensed. Neither has known critical or high-severity CVEs in its dependency tree.

Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.

rustdesk/rustdesk

Healthy

Strong maintenance signals

ConcernsDependency

copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) — review compatibility

HealthyFork & modify

No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

MixedDeploy as-is

Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; 4 cyclic import chains — pervasive coupling

  • AGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
  • Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
  • Last commit today
  • 32+ active contributors
  • Distributed ownership (top contributor 36% of recent commits)
  • AGPL-3.0 licensed
  • CI configured
  • Tests present

What would improve this?

  • Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
  • Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)

Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard

tw93/pake

Mixed

Mixed signals — read the receipts

ConcernsDependency

copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility

HealthyFork & modify

No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

HealthyDeploy as-is

No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.

  • Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 56% of recent commits
  • GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
  • Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
  • Last commit today
  • 15 active contributors
  • GPL-3.0 licensed
  • CI configured
  • Tests present

What would improve this?

  • Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)

Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard

Signal-by-signal breakdown

rustdeskpake
Stars123,38161,322
Last commit3d ago10d ago
LicenseAGPL-3.0GPL-3.0
Open issues1640
Has tests
Has CI
Test coverage6%89%
Dependency CVEs0 critical · 0 high · 2 moderate · 0 lowNo CVEs
Architecture gradeBA
Cycles40
Bottom-lineHealthy signalsMixed signals

Want the full analysis? rustdesk/rustdesk · tw93/pake

Ask AI about rustdesk/rustdesk vs tw93/pake

Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.