John Goerzen wrote: >Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James >Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard >drive.
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the King James Bible that's linked into a reader application? > * How do I make sure I distribute the source code? What IS the source > code? Is it the TIFFs pre-OCR? Is it the OCR'd text? (These first two > points speak to DFSG #2 -- how can you distribute something in source code > and compiled form when it has neither) The preferred form of modification for a textual version of the bible is plainly the text, and for a graphical version the images. A picture and a full description of a picture may contain exactly the same information, but they're plainly different things with different aims and so in each case would represent the "source". >The fact that a point has been made does not mean that it is correct. For >instance, once again, where is the source code and executable? Where is our >compelling interest in being able to distribute a modified RFC822? If I modify RFC822 (or 2822, or whatever) to describe an SMTP-based mechanism for washing machine control and accompany it with an application that speaks my modified protocol, I think there's a compelling interest in being able to distribute it. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
