Re: 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?

                Shachar

>>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. ;-)
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dov
>>    
>>


-- 
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click