On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:26:53AM -0400, Steve Mallett wrote: > While its not 'statutory' do you still consider it the 'definition' of > open-source?
Yes. Indeed, I don't believe a statutory-language definition would work as a manifesto, the way the OSD does. Imagine if the declaration of independence had been written in statutory language. I don't believe it's possible to make a legal document without taking the romance out of it. > 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.... The Debian Social Contract - the OSD is derived from part of that. My old paper on the OSD at http://perens.com/OSD.html . > *I apologize fully for sounding like a philosophy prof. No problem. The license attempt that started this thread is did remind me of a certain sophomore philosophy exercise. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3