Re: Re: my Bidi implementation

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, 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?
>
>                 Shachar

Hummm,  I think you are not missing anything, and most probably
you are right.  Right now that I think myself, I find it
reasonable.  I think the niether Arabeyes, nor PuTTY people
really checked it on fsf.org.  The scenario was that I said
"FriBidi is LGPLed, you can dynamically link to it, like xterm
does."  And people said "No, we want putty.exe to be standalone,
so FriBidi is not an option."

Thanks for the note Shachar,
--behdad
  behdad.org


-------------------------------------------------------
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