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 PROTECTED] to discuss this if there is actual code that could be merged in. Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
