[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FriBidi's license (was - my Bidi...)
- To: Development Discussions <developer at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: FriBidi's license (was - my Bidi...)
- From: Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:09:14 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Fribidi Discussion List <fribidi-discuss at lists dot sourceforge dot net>
--- Shachar Shemesh <fribidi-discuss at shemesh dot biz> wrote:
> They can't put the sources for fribidi inside their sources, or they
> must clearly label it as a bunch of sources under a different license.
> I don't see any problem with statically linking a library, though.
The PuTTY developers have noted that they are not willing to consider
an external library dependency and would only proceed with embedding
some Bidi code (ping PuTTY's main developer, Simon, for a more detailed
reason/explanation). This in turn brought to light the license issue.
This whole issue was never meant to affect fribidi (but its nice to
see some posts on the fribidi's list and some movement ;-) as we can
solve this entire PuTTY+Bidi issue via other means (by using or even
writing our own Bidi). I think there is a bigger topic that is under
the surface which is - should fribidi's license potentially affect or
exclude its usage from any application due to its current license
(that's something the fribidi developers should discuss if they deem
this an issue) ? As noted I really think this is a general discussion
point outside the specific realm of PuTTY.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam