> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Marty Minick > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 7:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project > > > Ok... So if I distribute the un-compiled source ONLY, > with, perhaps, a link to a free compiler, and the > afore-mentioned SRD-type file I am not in violation.
Very much OK. > BUT... If I compile the source prior to sending it > out, even if I also include the source AND the > SRD-type file, I am in violation? If the OGC only appears in the SRD-type file and is read by the code at run-time, I think you're clear all the way. If the OGC appears in the SRD AND in the source AND thus in the compiled binary, I think a literal reading of Ryan's statements could lead to the conclusion that you're in violation. And yes, that strikes me as extremely silly. And no, I don't think Ryan ever advocated such an extremist interpretation. But if the argument against compiled binaries is "A human can't read them"... And if the argument against the appendix approach is "You have to indicate the OGC everywhere it appears, not in some separate compilation"... Then your conclusion seems like the logical outcome. The binary contains OGC and is unreadable; and the source is readable but separate. Martin L. Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.TabletUML.com -- The UML tool you don't have to learn! _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
