Re: Non-gcc releases

[Etienne Gagnon <gagnon dot etienne_m at uqam dot ca>]

Hi Anthony,

Anthony Green wrote:
> Well, it's unlikely I will be able to convince you - even as a fellow
> Canadian :-)

You escaped my questions.  I'll re-state it:

Why do you want copyright assignment?  Why would libffi need to 
consist of a piece of software with a single copyright holder?

I see no need for that.

> > This is my biggest problem with
> > copyright assignment: it often drives away potential contributors, and
> > ends up slowing a project.
>
>
> I agree that this is the biggest problem with copyright assigments, but
> I don't feel it's too big a problem for libffi.

We disagree on this basic matter: I think that driving away even a 
single contributor is not good for the project.  It is quite difficult 
to find people with enough knowledge about low-level technical 
details, so driving them away is a problem for the project (even if 
you don't consider it "too big").

> > I would reverse the question and answer: Given the permissiveness of the
> > current license, I see no compelling reason to require copyright assignment
> > on contributions to libffi.
>
> I don't understand how the license has anything to do with this.

What is the touted value of copyright assignment, if it's not some 
alleged simplification of defending the code in court against 
copyright infringement?  Now, in this particular case, the license is 
*so* permissive, that I have difficulty to see a situation where 
getting to court to settle a problem would be necessary.

I only sense some "political" motivations behind the push for 
copyright assignment; I hardly see any practical positive value to it.
Yet, as I have shown above, it has practical drawbacks that I consider 
important.

Etienne

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