>The law will see it in whatever we can prove it to be.
>If we say it is a derived work and present our argument,
>and someone else says no it's not.
>Then the one who has the most persuasive argument in a
>court will win.
Still, it's safer to explicitly state what is what in our licence
beforehand in lawyer's English. Else there's a definitive possibility
someone has better arguments than we have.
>The way I see it:
>Interpreter = executable program code (or code segment)
>Stack/Scripts = program data (or data segment)
This is exactly what would have to be in the license if we want to be sure.
>compatible interpreter to execute your stack. For
>instance if Hypercard were Open Source, none of those
>stacks could be considered derived works because I
>could load them into Metacard.
MetaCard has no problem opening HyperCard stacks ...
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
