On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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?
It's just that. You haven't transformed the document into object code; you've merely surrounded it by object code. > >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. I don't disagree with that; I just don't find it so compelling that it outweighs the utility of having RFC822 available to start with. -- John
