Update onosaid.mdx

src/blog/onosaid.mdx

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The choices for an OSAID definition weren't great. Be maximalist about openness
 
 The flaws of the definition aside, I am relieved that we can now (for the most part) objectively evaluate claims. Even if the OSAID definition 'fails' long term, I think the process has been a success. Here are two possible 'failure' outcomes, which to me are still good outcomes:
 
-1. Over time we realize that the OSAID definition doesn't imply the same goodness as the original OSI license. Some other process results in another definition and over the years it gathers the same social support as the OSI software licenses definitions. It may or may not not be called the open source AI definition but, to quote Gallileo, the essence of things comes first. Names come after. 
+1. Over time we realize that the OSAID definition doesn't imply the same goodness as the Open Source Definition (OSD). Some other process results in another definition and over the years it gathers the same social support as the OSD. It may or may not not be called the open source AI definition but, to quote Gallileo, the essence of things comes first. Names come after. 
 
 2. The rhetoric of openness in AI will lose weight. People find other/better ways of describing goodness and responsibility in AI. We all just give up on saying anything about open source in AI (and call out the ones who do). I don't think we could get to this point without having tried our hands at a definition.