Re: [tlug] Open source license (wikipedia)

[Benjamin Kowarsch <trijezdci@example.com>]

On 23 May 2018 at 18:03, Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull.stephen.fw@example.com> wrote:

But regarding this particular description of "reconstruction", I did
not say otherwise and I'm not sure why you think I did.

Stephen, I didn't disagree with you but my reply was to Darren who wrote that he didn't think it could possibly be right that reconstructability of the original text was the applicable test. He based this on the conclusion that software source code compiled into executable code still constitutes a derivative work even though the original source code may not be exactly reproducible (verbatim) from the executable code.

Hence my response that it doesn't have to match verbatim to satisify the test of reproducibility of original.

hope this clarifies