Hi FreeType developers,
We have a bit of a problem with the old OpenType Layout code ripped out
of FreeType and called HarfBuzz these days. The problem is that Pango
is LGPL'ed, while HarfBuzz is GPL+FTL. The two do not quite match. Are
the FreeType developers willing to do one of the
Hi Behdad,
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:03:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi FreeType developers,
We have a bit of a problem with the old OpenType Layout code ripped out
of FreeType and called HarfBuzz these days. The problem is that Pango
is LGPL'ed, while HarfBuzz is
On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 18:52 +0100, David Turner wrote:
Hi Behdad,
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:03:56 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Hi FreeType developers,
We have a bit of a problem with the old OpenType Layout code ripped out
of FreeType and called HarfBuzz these days.
The problem is in Pango actually. Pango has no problem using it as in
no one ever complained about, except recently in Fedora lists. The
complaint is that Pango is not LGPLed, because it uses code that is GPL
+FTL.
Ah sorry, I imagined that harfbuzz was going to be distributed as a separate
In this new context, I understand that you would want a single license.
I'm ok with re-licensing this code under the LGPL,
Me too.
Werner
___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 19:14 +0100, David Turner wrote:
The problem is in Pango actually. Pango has no problem using it as in
no one ever complained about, except recently in Fedora lists. The
complaint is that Pango is not LGPLed, because it uses code that is GPL
+FTL.
Ah sorry, I
On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 21:54 +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
In this new context, I understand that you would want a single license.
I'm ok with re-licensing this code under the LGPL,
Me too.
Great, thanks. To make sure, I'm looking for making it LGPL+FTL. Not
LGPL alone. The FTL license is
