X-Git-Url: https://info9.net/gitweb/?p=wiki.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=tmarble%2Fposts%2Fis-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn;h=e843952cf7253e0413f2268c31cfeaa2cbcea013;hp=adad669782e3e139449470543e7480c134f2023b;hb=07bc4503469c600ce1271e7af1f8dbae91f1c2e9;hpb=c5d1a101e1626063c4d90d4e07e5014f305a020b

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 adad669..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
@@ -21,9 +21,12 @@ make open source possible. It's the free software license
 which uses copyright to *enable* sharing (vs. the default
 of *disabling* sharing).
 
+<br/>
+<br/>
 <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses">
 <img src="http://info9.net/images/osi-licenses.png" alt="Open Source Licenses"/>
 </a>
+<br/>
 
 And so I have appreciated many of the writings and speeches
 from SFLC on the mechanisms of software freedom. I was
@@ -46,7 +49,7 @@ 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 +62,12 @@ 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
+<br/>
+**Wat?**
+<br/>
+<br/>
+
+The entire [*raison d'être*][raison] 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!!!
 
@@ -77,15 +85,15 @@ 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
-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]]
 
@@ -97,3 +105,4 @@ source software in general?
 [pchestek-on-sflc]: https://twitter.com/pchestek/status/703704091227246593
 [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