On ج, 2004-04-02 at 23:56, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Hi, > > I just found that the BSD license problem we had in the BiCon's > early days, was a non-issue, as on July 22 1999, the 4BSD people > of Berkeley posted a not that the clause can be simply deleted: > > ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change >
Quite interesting. The funny thing is that I already know of this document, I simply didn't relate it to our situation. > Well, so now we have the old alternative if the code from Python > goes problematic some day ;). > ;) > Unfortunately this, added to the FriBidi+PuTTY problem, show that > we need more legal-aware hackers... > I hope that we learn from these. I am trying to make a summary of the Fribidi+PuTTY problem, please correct me if I am wrong: - Fribidi is LGPL licensed. - An LGPL licensed software cannot be legally used within an MIT licensed project, at least not with the result being MIT licensed. - The PuTTY project needs to use BiDi code (equivalent to Fribidi) but does not want to use it as an external library (technical issues). - Possible solutions: * Fribidi copyright owners change license to something more permissive or grant PuTTY an exception. * PuTTY uses other code with a less retrictive license, like the ICU library (MIT license). * PuTTY write their own code. > --behdad > behdad.org > _______________________________________________ > Developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
