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

Re: [Fribidi-discuss] Re: my Bidi implementation

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?


I checked my old archives yesterday and I found that I still have
the very first releases of fribidi where I was the sole contributor.
I personally have no problem releasing these under a putty compatible
licence. It would save Ahmed some work if he didn't have to
reimplement this. I think it would be good to rename the sources
though so that there is no confusion with fribidi.

Do you have anything against it, Behdad?

What it would give you:

  * A complete (but probably somewhat buggy) implementation of
    the implicit unicode bidi algorithm.

  * No support for explicit overrides (but, hey, would use those
    in a terminal emulator!)

  * Less than optimal speed wise. No sophisticated lookup (neither
    two-level nor nine-level. ;-)


Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting