On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Nadim Shaikli wrote: > --- Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
