Bruce, [snip]
> 1. The OSD is not written in statutory language. While its not 'statutory' do you still consider it the 'definition' of open-source? > It still makes a _wonderful_ manifesto, its success speaks for that. But to > apply it blindly would be foolhardy. I imagine that there is an unbounded > set of licenses that appear to be OSD-compliant yet are so pernicious in > their terms as to be outside of the spirit of the OSD. Recognizing the weaknesses (and strengths) of speaking in symbolic terms..... Is there anything _else_ that you feel helps define the 'spirit' of the OSD? Writings, postings etc.... So many folks have different ideas of what the 'spirit' is that, en masse, we do apply it blindly if not adhering strictly to a formal 'definition'. Or should we (everyone) use it a 'spiritual' guide in conjunction with its definition and work with it on its own? *I apologize fully for sounding like a philosophy prof. -- Steve Mallett | Stable, Open-Source Apps [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://OSDir.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://open5ource.net <GPG, Voice, etc.> "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Mohandas Gandhi -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
