* Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011114 05:33]: > It's been pointed out that: > > 1. The OSD is not written in statutory language. > 2. That it says what you _can't_ do rather than what you can and thus makes > it easy to find loopholes, because there is an unbounded set of activities > that it does not restrict. > 3. That it was created before we had any experience interpreting it and before > there was a DMCA at all. > > 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.
What I'm telling since years in this list: Despite it's naming, the OSD is no formal _definition_ of free software, it's at most a set of _guidelines_ that _describe_ what free software is. Which is no wonder, given its origin, the DFSG. I wished the fathers of 'Open Source' wouldn't have made this naming mistake ,-| Gregor -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3