I think I understand where the "must be human readable"
interpretation is coming from, and I can understand why, and thinking about it,
I fully support it.
Speaking specifically about software, if you can't
read/understand it (it's in binary), how can you check/how do you know that
something that *SHOULDN'T* be OGL hasn't been
included???
I believe this is the reason for the Wizard's stand on
"appendix" things also. There's nothing guaranteeing that everything in
the program is in the appendix, and no way (without more effort or technical
knowledge than many have) to check it.
Sure, you could run the program, but then you'd have to
run seemingly endless iterations (create class after class, etc) and take a lot
of time. It's much quicker to be able to check the data itself, saving the
publisher much time should they feel the need to check sources using their OGL
content.
