Re: LibFFI or LibVM? [was: Re: SableVM & Cygwin

Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>">" == Grzegorz B Prokopski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>They're also considering change of the license to a more
>>>restrictive one.
> 
> False.  Where did you hear this?

I guess Greg meant "They might also consider changing the license to
a more restrictive one".

This was actually heard from Anthony Green, which took on the
responsibility of trying to ask every copyright holder to assign
his rights to the FSF.

Please read:
  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libffi-discuss/2004/msg00008.html

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. ;-)

I am strongly opposed to the GCC Steering Committee (or whatever
delegates they have for libffi) position on rejecting contributions
to libffi without copyright assignment, which has considerably
slowed down (if not killed) the windows port.

Etienne

-- 
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.             http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/