[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: FriBidi's license (was - my Bidi...)

Behdad Esfahbod wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:

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

Done that.

* Those who use FriBidi of ICU

Switched to that. Am using ICU at the moment, and hating every second.

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

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.

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.

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...

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 time dependancy".

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:

 * 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

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.


--behdad behdad.org


Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting