>Yup, as long as the dependency is already on the machine I suppose. That's exactly what I was getting at. If gzip was allowed, then any common decompression

>Yup, as long as the dependency is already on the machine I suppose. That's exactly what I was getting at. If gzip was allowed, then any common decompression utility should be allowed. If that's the case, and said utility relies on an external library, should that library be included as part of the size of the decompression utility? It's arguable that the "fabric" over which the data is delivered shouldn't matter. If shouldn't really matter if the linked library comes from the same SSD as the executable, or from a server on the other side of the world. We currently define "the machine" as the internals of a box. Would this count if you were running the executable from a removable drive? If not, why does "network storage" trigger the disqualification, and not "USB storage"? I understand the original premise of Mike's challenge, but considering a loophole is being discussed here, I'd like to know where people see that the boundaries of similar loopholes lie.