From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gnu: Add German Aspell dictionary. Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:35:25 +0300 Message-ID: <87a8fw2cs2.fsf@gmail.com> References: <1472321979-10150-1-git-send-email-john@darrington.wattle.id.au> <1472321979-10150-3-git-send-email-john@darrington.wattle.id.au> <20160828092045.GG26988@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <20160828124104.GA27453@jocasta.intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41768) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beI2Z-0002ET-5Q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 04:35:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1beI2X-0006KT-5W for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 04:35:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160828124104.GA27453@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message of "Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:41:04 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, John Darrington John Darrington (2016-08-28 15:41 +0300) wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:20:45PM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote: > > +(define-public aspell-dict-de > > + (aspell-dictionary "de" "German" > > + #:version "20030222-1" > > + #:sha256 > > + (base32 > > + "01p92qj66cqb346gk7hjfynaap5sbcn85xz07kjfdq623ghr8v5s"))) > don't forget your copyright line. Otherwise looks good. > > I didn't forget. But I don't consider these 6 lines to be in any respect > novel, creative or original. The FSF guidelines for what is regarded as > "legally significant" for copyright purposes mentions the limit of 15 lines. > > In fact, I challenge anyone to offer a definition of aspell-dict-de which > works in Guix AND satisfies our rather strict coding style, and does not > differ from the above, except in whitespace. > > In other words, there is nothing novel or creative in what I have written. > Thus, is would be dishonest (perhaps illegal?) for me to claim copyright on > this work. I think this patch deserves it. My understanding is we just don't have a policy on adding copyright lines: some people add a copyright line even for a simple package update. -- Alex