From 07bc4503469c600ce1271e7af1f8dbae91f1c2e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Marble Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:49:11 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] tmarble-on-sflc formatting (ter) --- tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) 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 a72334c..e843952 100644 --- a/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn +++ b/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn @@ -62,7 +62,6 @@ 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?**
@@ -92,9 +91,9 @@ 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 -bigger issue here is would "asking for a consensus about the spirit" +bigger issue here is **would "asking for a consensus about the spirit" trump the written copyright license and set a scary precedent for open -source software in general? +source software in general?** [[!tag sflc gpl cddl zfs floss]] -- 2.45.2