Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes: > My point is that distinguishing trivial vs. non-trivial parts of a > change may be subject to interpretation. When in doubt, I recommend > staying on the safe side of not accepting a change that is more than > 15 lines of "maybe-significant" changes.
AFACT, there was no doubt involved when I said "15 lines of non-trivial code". > Yes, in this case there is no new idea, but this is irrelevant to the > discussion, I thought we had a discussion about it recently, but my memories may be brittle. > since ideas cannot be copyrighted anyway. I knew I shouldn't have used this word. Fair enough. Replace it with "process", or whatever has a copyright meaning. > Well, I hope I clarified my point, which is to stay on safe side of > asking contributors to sign the FSF papers when the importance of the > change can be subject to intepretation. If your point (I didn't get it actually) is "interpretation is hard, let's not interpret anything and count everything as significant", well, I think this is not a good way to look at the problem. But that's fine, as long as it suits you. Regards,
