<<Well, court decisions in this area are its all about being reasonable, and
sounds are things that you listen to - not read.>>
Compiled programs are things you launch and run, not read. Your line of reasoning does not support an interpretation that the code must be readable if it is an application, and not the code, that is being distributed.
If one goes with the pure intent of the medium: a sound is meant to be heard, not read; a compiled program is meant to be run, not read; a text is meant to be read.
I could copyright a pattern of noises that only dogs can hear. Being the copyright holder I could release it under the OGL. Nobody except dogs would be able to hear it at all. Nobody would be able to see it at all -- they might see an interpretation of the sound on complex equipment or how it vibrates the environment, but nobody can per se see a sound. It would be in compliance with the license.
The licensing requirements are to clearly designate what is and is not licensed. That's all. The license makes no requirements that the item to be distributed be something that other people have any prayer of ever being able to access, let alone read. It merely requires that if people decide to redistribute it that it be wholly unambiguous about exactly what is and is not licensed for redistribution.
Lee
