Re: PuTTY details

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

--- Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Simon Tatham wrote:
>
[snip snip]
>
> > If I were doing this myself, I strongly suspect I would write my own
> > bidi implementation, designed from scratch to be small, totally
> > portable, and self-contained. This way we would avoid any licensing
> > dangers, preserve full portability across any platform anyone ever
> > plans to run PuTTY on, and avoid wasting space.
> 
> You can always do this.  But then you are simply adding one more
> place that I need to go fix Arabic Shaping bugs.  Currently there
> are Pango, QT, OO.o, AbiWord, and Mozilla that times to times I
> have to fix their bugs.  FriBidi in a month or two would have
> Arabic Shaping support, and most of those crap about character
> sets moved outside.  It's up to you.

I'm afraid that we've veered off the main topic a bit - is the
license an issue (from the posts without clear answers it seems
a forgone conclusion, is it) ?  Is adding some LGPL code into
PuTTY affect its MIT license ?

We can always try to create our own, but why reinvent the wheel
until we know for a fact we can't take FriBidi and simply strip
it down to the bare essentials.

Regards,

 - Nadim


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/