[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- To: Shachar Shemesh <fribidi-discuss at shemesh dot biz>
- Subject: Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:07:45 -0500
- Cc: Fribidi Discussion List <fribidi-discuss at lists dot sourceforge dot net>, Development Discussions <developer at arabeyes dot org>
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> I think there's something really basic I'm missing. Why does putty need
> any license change at all?
> Even if they want to statically link fribidi, they can do that under the
> LGPL license. All they have to do is to provide means for other people
> to create a version of putty that has a different fribidi
> implementation. As putty is open source itself, that requirement is
> always met.
> Is there something I'm missing here?
Hummm, I think you are not missing anything, and most probably
you are right. Right now that I think myself, I find it
reasonable. I think the niether Arabeyes, nor PuTTY people
really checked it on fsf.org. The scenario was that I said
"FriBidi is LGPLed, you can dynamically link to it, like xterm
does." And people said "No, we want putty.exe to be standalone,
so FriBidi is not an option."
Thanks for the note Shachar,