A private correspondent wrote to me, expressing astonishment at the notion that the OSD might be changed simply because "one of the major powers" (meaning, as I suppose, the GPL) was found not to be conformant with its terms, whereas "wannabe" compliant licenses are made to conform to the OSD. I like my reply enough [buffs nails] to publish it.
The OSD is a criticism of open-source licenses, and the OSI is a critic. If a theatre critic says that so-and-so's new play is no good, this is generally accepted as within bounds, and if the critic is respected, the play will probably not last very long. But if the critic says that _Hamlet_ is no good (as opposed to a particular production of it), he will make himself a laughingstock -- not because Shakespeare is a "major power", but because his plays (with some exceptions) have held the stage for four centuries, and have become part of the fabric of the definition of "good plays", at least in the anglophone theatre. This analogy is culture-bound, but one can find analogous analogies (!) in other cultures, and in fact the OSD does represent a cultural artefact: it states in concise form what our understanding of free and open-source software is. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan "It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon. Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back again. It's a classic tale." --Kryten, Red Dwarf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
