Subject: Re: LibFFI or LibVM?
From: Mark Wielaard <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], "Gerrit P. Haase" <[email-masked]>, Peter Lovell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:24:30 +0200

Hi (CCed Anthony since he is the libffi maintainer),

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 20:20, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> IMO, I see little reasons to get a single copyright holder, given
> libffi's weak license, other than to gain the ability to change
> the license...  As I said: it's simply an opinion. ;-)

Having paperwork on file with a custodian for a project has the benefit
of making sure the status of a project is not questioned now or in the
future. And that the copyrights can be enforced by that entity. We do
this also for GNU Classpath for example to make sure that every
contributer can, may and has actively consented to distribute his
contribution as free software. And that we have a record of who did what
and with the knowledge and assistance of any employers that might have
claim on what was produced by their employees. Cases like SCO-IBM
(unfortunately) make clear why that is a good thing to have.

> [...] has considerably slowed down (if not killed) the windows port.

That is bad. Lets try to get the missing patches merged in. There is a
mailinglist [email-masked] to discuss this if there is
actual code that could be merged in.

Cheers,

Mark