At 1:13 PM -0700 on 7/17/99, Michael Fair wrote:
>The way I see it:
>Interpreter = executable program code (or code segment)
>Stack/Scripts = program data (or data segment)
>
>The intrpreter loads the data, and executes it's
>instructions. Changing the data segment of a program
>without changing the executable (i.e. a standalone) could
>very easily be proven not to be a derived work.
>They are separate components packaged in the same file
>for convienence and end user usability.
Except the law does not see it that way.
>
>A derived work could not be separated from it's original
>without rendering the derived work useless.
>
>For those of you who are about to say a stack without
>an intrepreter is useless you could write another OT
>compatible interpreter to execute your stack.
Does not change the fact that you did not, anbd that you instead combined
the interpreter and the stac kto create a derived work.
>Actually my vote goes to the majority vote
>of any already existening license.
>PS Who makes the final decision anyway,
Those of us who are writing it, no doubt.
