This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: Documentation etc
So, if I understand correctly, the main motivation for seeking
copyright assignment is so that the FSF can change the license
to a strictger one.
I am totally opposed to any change to the license of libffi. And,
as I explained before, I will not be assigning my copyright to
anybody for any possible change I will make to libffi.
This settles the question for me: I really think that libffi should
migrate off the GCC repository, to protect it, on the shorter and
longer term, against any license restrictions, and allow
for contributions without copyright assignment. Also, it will assess
libffi's independence of control from the GCC Steering Committee.
I have bought last week a new server specifically to host my
free software projects (which are currently hosted on SourceForge).
My primary source control system is Subversion (takes approx. 5 minutes
to learn for a CVS user, and a little more to master).
I will set up a libffi project on this server. The contribution policy
will (1) *allow* but *not* require FSF copyright assignment, and (2) preserve
the current license.
I think that GCC can continue hosting a copy of the new upstream tree, if
it simplifies GCC's build process, and allows for more eyes to look at the
code. Yet, I really think it will be healthier for the official libffi to be
hosted off the GCC tree.
Etienne
Tom Tromey wrote:
">" == Grzegorz B Prokopski <gadek@debian.org> writes:
[ no switch to GPL ]
Really???
Anthony> I like the existing license, however, the GPL+Exception
Anthony> (libgcj/libgcc) license is also OK with me. This may be a
Anthony> requirement for FSF stewardship of the project.
"GPL" and "GPL + exception" are very different.
GPL+exception is what is used for Classpath, libgcj, and libgcc.
Tom
--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/