[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- To: Fribidi Discussion List <fribidi-discuss at lists dot sourceforge dot net>
- Subject: Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- From: Omer Zak <omerz at actcom dot co dot il>
- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:22:47 +0200 (EET)
- Cc: Development Discussions <developer at arabeyes dot org>
I am not sure I know enough of the background of the discussion, so some
of what I said may not be addressing the real issues.
FriBidi was released under LGPL, and my own contributions to this package
are also licensed under LGPL.
My interpretation of LGPL is that as long as FriBidi is used as a separate
DLL and its source code is provided to anyone who has the power to replace
the DLL in his system, the rest of the product may be proprietary (matter
of fact, we at Ozicom use FriBidi exactly this way in Hebrew localizations
for Nokia 9110 and some Symbian OS versions).
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> You can always travel in time using CVS.Looking at ChangeLog,
> seems like 0.1.11 is a good candidate, otherwise you need to ask
> Owen and Omer.
> I have nothing special against that.But, another solution I can
> think of is to give explicit permission on an specific version of
> the code, to be redistributed in binary form with PuTTY,
> something like that...Roozbeh, what do you think?
> Other than that, Dov, feel free to do everything, you are the
> father afterall ;).
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 dov at imagic dot weizmann dot ac dot il wrote:
> > I checked my old archives yesterday and I found that I still have
> > the very first releases of fribidi where I was the sole contributor.
> > I personally have no problem releasing these under a putty compatible
> > licence. It would save Ahmed some work if he didn't have to
> > reimplement this. I think it would be good to rename the sources
> > though so that there is no confusion with fribidi.
> > Do you have anything against it, Behdad?
> > What it would giveyou:
> > * A complete (but probably somewhat buggy) implementation of
> > the implicit unicode bidi algorithm.
> > * No support for explicit overrides (but, hey, would use those
> > in a terminal emulator!)
> > * Less than optimal speed wise. No sophisticated lookup (neither
> > two-level nor nine-level. ;-)
> > Regards,
> > Dov
My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html