Re: Patch for Copyright Notices in maintain.texi [WAS: Re: Approving Dezyne, savannah task 16067]

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Maybe the wording here, "interesting", is what is the issue.  I think
   > what Janneke was trying to convey (correct me if I am wrong), was a
   > "interesting" file in the sense that it is copyrightable, and not
   > e.g., autogenerated, just some boiler plate, simple test cases, etc.

   Yes, I believe we need a better rule of thumb than the 10-lines
   suggestion.  If any line is counted as any other, these seven lines

   --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
   'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
   Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
   What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
   Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
   Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
   What's in a name? That which we call a rose
   By any other name would smell as sweet;
   --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

   would not be copyrightable, and not need a header, while these would

   --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
   1
   1
   2
   2
   3
   3
   4
   4
   5
   5
   6
   6
   --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

   I find the former, much more "interesting" than the latter, don't you
   agree?  In any case, to *such* a file I certainly *would* (want to
   suggest to) add a header.  Yet a file can be non-interesting by itself,
   and simultaneously essential for the package.

   While files like the second could be crucial for a test framework or
   something, I believe it would be unnecessary, silly, and
   counterproductive having to add a header, let alone writing code to
   stript that header during test (as an example).

Indeed.  

   A file that is not essential, e.g., seldomly used debug code, could be
   very creative, need a header, yet be not essential (and be a better
   candidate not to include in the package).

   Maybe something like "sufficiently creative", or "considerably
   creative", or "somewhat creative", or "non-trivial" could better than
   "interesting"?

The word "non-trivial" already caused discussions, so I would not
suggest that.  What you find trivial, I might not ...

Maybe use "interesting" and simply qualify the word somewhat? Like,
not something that a computer could generate, either via templates, or
what not.  E.g., the program to generate the doubled pair list of
numbers would be "interesting" -- while the output of said program is
not.