On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Kamal Dalal wrote: > 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 > > > > 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.
No. All that happens is that if one wants to use PuTTY's code in a non-LGPL compatible manner, he loses the bidi support, which comes from FriBidi. Everything else is there. This is what Wine project is doing. > 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. > > Kamal > _______________________________________________ > Developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer > > --behdad behdad.org _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
