Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
>
> >Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
> >Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
> >drive.
>
> And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the
> King James Bible that's linked into a reader application?
It's just that. You haven't transformed the document into object code;
you've merely surrounded it by object code.
> >The fact that a point has been made does not mean that it is correct. For
> >instance, once again, where is the source code and executable? Where is our
> >compelling interest in being able to distribute a modified RFC822?
>
> If I modify RFC822 (or 2822, or whatever) to describe an SMTP-based
> mechanism for washing machine control and accompany it with an
> application that speaks my modified protocol, I think there's a
> compelling interest in being able to distribute it.
I don't disagree with that; I just don't find it so compelling that it
outweighs the utility of having RFC822 available to start with.
-- John
Reply to: