[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- To: developer at arabeyes dot org
- Subject: Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- From: "ahmad khalifa" <ahmadkhalifa at hotmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:24:05 +0000
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,
check this post...
you're the one who said we can only link to it...
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*