tmarble-on-sflc formatting

diff --git a/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn b/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn
index adad669782e3e139449470543e7480c134f2023b..39375b4e034777ddbc8357449164591d407cb252 100644 (file)
--- a/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn
+++ b/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ which uses copyright to *enable* sharing (vs. the default
 of *disabling* sharing).
 
 <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses">
-<img src="http://info9.net/images/osi-licenses.png" alt="Open Source Licenses"/>
+<img src="http://info9.net/images/osi-licenses.png" style="border: solid 1px SlateGrey; border-radius: 4px;" alt="Open Source Licenses"/>
 </a>
 
 And so I have appreciated many of the writings and speeches
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ court that the "you know, the software license was really
 about the spirit of sharing and that means we are allowed
 to use it -- and not be held to the pesky details as written in the license".
 
-A lawyer I respect called this out: ["'Equity' has no place in US law"][pchestek-on-sflc]. The point is that for lawyers software licenses work because
+A lawyer I respect called this out: ["Equity" has no place in US law"][pchestek-on-sflc]. The point is that for lawyers software licenses work because
 they have clear, written rules to guarantee the spirit is upheld; but spirit
 doesn't work in front of a judge -- clear rules do.
 
@@ -59,7 +59,9 @@ of the license". Especially given the earlier comment which clearly states
 "[the combination] is inconsistent with the literal meaning of
 GPLv2 section 2(b)."
 
-**Wat?** The entire *raison d'être* for open source software licenses
+**Wat?**
+
+The entire *raison d'être* for open source software licenses
 was so that developers (and users) would have clarity and
 wouldn't have to *ask permission* to use the software!!!
 
@@ -77,9 +79,9 @@ The [latest SFLC 990 I could find][sflc-990-2013] shows SFLC getting 78%
 (or just over $5 million) from "non public support" (see page 14).
 
 A number with "two commas" would even be interesting to
-for profit companies. Just *whom* is making these "donations"
+for-profit companies. Just *whom* is making these "donations"
 and what exactly do they get in return? Apparently [I'm not the only one
-wondering about this question][emacsen-on-slfc].
+wondering about this question][emacsen-on-sflc].
 
 On one hand it's important to know if SFLC as a non-profit is, indeed,
 acting in the public interest (as the IRS requires). Yet the even