Re: Bidi-less Applications Patching Policy

[Muhammad Alkarouri <malkarouri at yahoo dot co dot uk>]

 --- Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu> wrote:
> NO NO NO NO.  People here always confuse LGPL with GPL.  The way
> to go is to convince people to use an external library
> (compile-time optional, or even run-time optional).  So, you go
> and give them an immediate option called miniBidi, so why should
> they ever accept another option?  What you are missing is the
> hassle to update all those embedded minibidi instances in
> zillions of applications later.  Shared libraries have been born
> for a reason...

And by the way, GPL is not that bad. Many projects do use these things.
Example:

'''The Common UNIX Printing SystemTM, ("CUPSTM"), is provided under the GNU
General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License ("LGPL"),
Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating systems and the OpenSSL toolkit.
A copy of the exceptions and licenses follow this introduction. '''
http://www.cups.org/faq.php?3

The sensible thing is that if you are doing open source, you can benefit from
open source projects. When you intend to close source your program, at least
have the courtsy to 'buy' a license from the original developers. Dual
licensing is commonly used nowadays.

Enjoy.
Muhammad Alkarouri


	
	
		
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html