Rich Hickey basically wrote this in response to one of the notable and respected contributors of his ecosystem. If Rich wanted open source to be nothing more than a license and delivery mechanism then he shouldn’t have accepted volunteers. But a language without an ecosystem of volunteers is a dead language.

Clojure "the language" is certainly ossified, but Clojure "the ecosystem" is doing very, very well.

I'm genuinely curious. What about the language do you feel is "ossified"? I am interpreting that as being a negative description.

Stability is extremely valuable. A lack of change to the core language over extended periods of time can be a very good thing, especially if certain changes would break existing code. Rich has made it clear that he is indeed targeting this kind of stability.

Again, I would be very interested to hear what specific changes you think need to be made to 'Clojure "the language"'.

No changes, I'm a happy Clojure user. Long-term stability is one of its selling points.

Been busy and didn't see the response...

So... you meant 'ossified' in a good way?? If so, I guess I would have used a different term that didn't have such a negative connotation.

Many languages do quite well as commercial products.