Re: Extending xm_defines syntax to get rid of more xm-files

[dewar at gnat dot com]

<<True in general, but not in the cases of these host machine file.  They are
making declaratory statements about properties of the host machine and are
being done in the only way possible given those properties.  I'd argue they
aren't protectable by copyright *at all*.
>>

All I said is that it is possible for a single line to be protectable, it
is also possible for a thousand lines to contain no protectable expression.
The point is that there is no magic number that meets some statutory
definition of fair use (there is none) or staturary definition of
de minimus (there is none). Both these concepts are defined only by case law.

It is safest to include the proper copyright notice everywhere (though
certainly not legally necessary, it is never legally necessary to include
an explicit copyright statement).