[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- To: Development Discussions <developer at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation
- From: Kamal Dalal <kamal at banoora dot net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:42:44 +0200
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040304)
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
Is there something I'm missing here?
Yes, it is possible as far as Fibidi's license is concerned, but then
PuTTY will not be completely MIT. A work derived from PuTTY (MIT) can do
whatever they want with the sources, including changing it and closing
the sources of the derived work. If Fribidi becomes part of PuTTY then
the MIT licence is constrained by the LGPL.
Linking dynamically to Fribidi can resolve this issue, but PuTTY's
authors do not like this solution (what was their argument?). On the
other hand, implementing Bidi inside PuTTY would probably inflate its
size beyond recognition, and then PuTTY looses one of its attractive
points which is the small size (I think it can fit on a diskette).
Perhaps PuTTY's authors would reconsider if they have to choose between
size inflation or dynamic optional plug (DLL) that is LGPL.