Re: Enhanced language support for Modula-2

["Jim Blandy" <jimb@red-bean.com>]

On 2/20/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> Do you think we need copyright paperwork for Waldek's patch?  I think
> it's sufficiently trivial.

Below is what I'm going by, from the Project GNU's 'maintain.texi'. 
It meets the size requirement, and while much of the patch is
repetitions of similar patterns nearby, read_set_type isn't a direct
tweake copy of anything.  I think it's borderline, which to me means
we need paperwork.

@node Legally Significant
@section Legally Significant Changes

If a person contributes more than around 15 lines of code and/or text
that is legally significant for copyright purposes, which means we
need copyright papers for it as described above.

A change of just a few lines (less than 15 or so) is not legally
significant for copyright.  A regular series of repeated changes, such
as renaming a symbol, is not legally significant even if the symbol
has to be renamed in many places.  Keep in mind, however, that a
series of minor changes by the same person can add up to a significant
contribution.  What counts is the total contribution of the person; it
is irrelevant which parts of it were contributed when.