From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24240 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2006 21:22:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 24232 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2006 21:22:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (HELO xproxy.gmail.com) (66.249.82.193) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:22:10 +0000 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s9so733877wxc for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.89.7 with SMTP id m7mr2002092wxb; Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.125.17 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:22:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0602201322o3791841dv2916e53181e9f308@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:42:00 -0000 From: "Jim Blandy" To: "Jim Blandy" , "Gaius Mulley" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Enhanced language support for Modula-2 In-Reply-To: <20060220150513.GB14155@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <87vevg9puv.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <8f2776cb0602151619w5fd8f043u3e7227e27f3567a9@mail.gmail.com> <20060220150513.GB14155@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00384.txt.bz2 On 2/20/06, Daniel Jacobowitz 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'.=20 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.