"Open Source Constitution"?

[Chuck Swiger]

Andrew Aitken wrote:
> I'd like to know if the OSI Board has had any conversations with the folks
> at CA and/or Sun about this? Danase? Their goal is a fine one but their
> selection of CDDL as the potential template is certainly alarming.

Why?  (It is alarming because?)

Other than being too long, I think the CDDL is well-written, and adheres well 
to the spirit of the OSI definition of open source.

> Plus I hope they do not plan on using the word "constitution" in the license or
> for marketing purposes. That term has many powerful emotional associations
> I personlly believe are most appropriate for something developed by the
> community and in the spirit of "free" software not "commercial open source"
> software.

What is "commercial open source"?
Apparently, you mean the CDDL + Solaris 10.

But if I buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux starting at $349, does that make Linux 
commercial open source?  If I buy a $35 CD-set from bsdmall.com, does that 
make FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or NetBSD commercial open source?

I think that drawing a line between "open source" and "commercial open source" 
is awfully hard to do, and may even be counterproductive: people draw lines to 
  exclude other people, after all, as Peter Gabriel noted in "Not One of Us"...

-- 
-Chuck