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

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

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 always met.

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.