Re: FriBidi's license

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu>]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Nadim Shaikli wrote:

> --- Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at cs dot toronto dot edu> wrote:
> > 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
>
> As noted this is NOT a PuTTY issue - or better yet "forget
> PuTTY entirely", we'll go about dealing with that application
> differently (ie. in an unassociated manner to fribidi).
>
> As I've stated earlier - this is purely a "how best to license
> FriBidi" issue now (and I'm not taking any sides since I haven't
> contributed to the project and don't feel right putting in my
> $0.02's worth even :-).  If the consensus is that it is a non-issue
> then so be it.

There's no problem with LGPLed code that I can see.  Even in the
case of PuTTY, it's mostly personal preference of the PuTTY team.
I see no problem in the license of FriBidi.

> Regards,
>
>  - Nadim

--behdad
  behdad.org