[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: FriBidi's license (was - my Bidi...)
- To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu>
- Subject: Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: FriBidi's license (was - my Bidi...)
- From: Shachar Shemesh <fribidi-discuss at shemesh dot biz>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:18:22 +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
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:Done that.
On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 19:39, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
by using or even writing our own Bidi/me is very shocked to hear that!
/me is not shocked at all.
Why in hell did we spend those many hours working on FriBidi's 100%
Unicode compatiblity if one will still need to write a new bidi engine
for many free software applications?
There are 10 kinds of application developers:
* Those who start their own bidi implementation
* Those who use FriBidi of ICUSwitched to that. Am using ICU at the moment, and hating every second.
The Putty case proves nothing. I can understand someone not wishing for
runtime dependancy on another library. Not wanting any compile time
dependancy on an external library means that you, by definition, have to
write your own. I don't think that's a case for fribidi's future in any way.
That's something to think about. I seriously believe we should change
the license to a more liberal license, and the Putty case is proof
Of course, my entire contribution to fribidi thus far has been a single
bug report, and suggesting a development direction for the "new
interface" that nobody seems to like. I am not a copyright holder, and
thus not one who's opinion binds anyone.
For whatever it's worth, it's a me too on this one. Notice that there is
nothing to prevent any open source software of any license from using
fribidi in any reasonable way, unless they say "they don't want compile
No, I seriously believe the opposite. I like the Copyleft, GPL,
LGPL, and FSF. And I want to walk in the road. Why? Because
that's the way many great pieces of software are walking in:
Linux, GNOME, blah, blah...
Putty can even put the entire fribidi source in a subdir in their
source, and clearly state that this subdir is under a different license.
BTW, in the case of PuTTY, there are a 10 things to consider:Well, technically there is a Linux version of putty compiled using
winelib. That was, however, done mostly to test winelib, and not to
bring putty to Linux.
* The weakest point in bidi support in PuTTY is not the bidi
alg, but the semantics of the terminal.
* PuTTY is a no-op in Linux IMO
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting