fixed pchestek link

[wiki.git] / tmarble / posts / is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn

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 a72334c593918429f1a17eb073d43743e60b7ab4..612a0b92d12f8b143aca1034b3d376dbabdbe90b 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
@@ -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)."
 
-<br/>
 <br/>
 **Wat?**
 <br/>
@@ -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]]
 
@@ -103,7 +102,7 @@ source software in general?
 [webmink-on-cddl]: https://blogs.oracle.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue
 [cddl]: https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0
 [freedombox]: https://freedomboxfoundation.org
-[pchestek-on-sflc]: https://twitter.com/pchestek/status/703704091227246593
+[pchestek-on-sflc]: https://twitter.com/pchestek/status/703933428341805056
 [sflc-990-2013]: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/412/412165986/412165986_201401_990.pdf
 [emacsen-on-sflc]: http://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2016/02/28/why-is-sflc-siding-with-oracle-over-linux-developers/
 [raison]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d'%C3%AAtre