[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu>
- Subject: Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- From: Shachar Shemesh <fribidi-discuss at shemesh dot biz>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:00:07 +0200
- Cc: Fribidi Discussion List <fribidi-discuss at lists dot sourceforge dot net>, Development Discussions <developer at arabeyes dot org>
- Organization: Lingnu Open Systems Consulting
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040312 Debian/1.6-3
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
Is there something I'm missing here?
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 give you:
* 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. ;-)
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting