On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Muhammad Alkarouri wrote: > 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.
Correct. > - The PuTTY project needs to use BiDi code (equivalent to Fribidi) but > does not want to use it as an external library (technical issues). The whole point is that it's not a "technical issue". I would have been more than happy to change the FriBidi's license if it was for techinacl issues, but it's more like personal preferences. > - Possible solutions: > * Fribidi copyright owners change license to something more permissive > or grant PuTTY an exception. Granting PuTTY an exception does not work, because it means people basing their work on PuTTY can not use it. > * PuTTY uses other code with a less retrictive license, like the ICU > library (MIT license). > * PuTTY write their own code. It's easy to say this, but I wait longer for them to see it's not so easy... --behdad behdad.org _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
