~sircmpwn/writefreesoftware.org

Copyleft: Emphasize the need of distribution v1 APPLIED

Felix Freeman: 3
 Copyleft: Emphasize the need of distribution
 Minor spelling improvements
 OSS & FS are 'almost' completely compatible

 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Thanks!

To git@git.sr.ht:~sircmpwn/writefreesoftware.org
   e3e9c92..0784a82  master -> master
Export patchset (mbox)
How do I use this?

Copy & paste the following snippet into your terminal to import this patchset into git:

curl -s https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/writefreesoftware.org/patches/42334/mbox | git am -3
Learn more about email & git

[PATCH 1/3] Copyleft: Emphasize the need of distribution Export this patch

For the activation of requirements of the license. And generally better
specify legal conditions.
---
 content/learn/copyleft.md | 18 ++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/learn/copyleft.md b/content/learn/copyleft.md
index 73ded5c..2c4072e 100644
--- a/content/learn/copyleft.md
+++ b/content/learn/copyleft.md
@@ -7,8 +7,9 @@ weight: -8
encourage the proliferation of free software and protect free software from
being incorporated into non-free works. This works by giving you not only the
*right* to share your improvements, but the *obligation* to share your
improvements under some conditions. It is very important to understand these
obligations when re-using copyleft software in your own work.
improvements under the same conditions when the software is distributed. It is
very important to understand these obligations when re-using copyleft software
in your own work.

{{< tip >}}
**Terminology note**:
@@ -47,7 +48,7 @@ Copyleft licenses address some of these problems:
   ensuring that work built on top of free software grows and benefits the free
   software ecosystem.
2. Copyleft ensures that those who improve or re-use free software share their
   changes with the community, so that all users can benefit from their
   changes with their users, so that the community can benefit from their
   improvements.

Copyleft software can be sold, like all other free software, but requiring that
@@ -64,8 +65,8 @@ Copyleft licenses differ in how strongly their copyleft clauses affect re-use of
the software. For example, the weak copyleft [Mozilla Public License][MPL] is
*file-based*, such that the copyleft clause covers individual source code files,
and not the project as a whole: you can drop one of these files into any project
without having to relicense the larger project, so long as you re-publish any
changes to those specific files.
without having to relicense the larger project, so long as you distribute any
changes to those specific files under the same license terms.

[MPL]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/

@@ -83,8 +84,8 @@ program as the software artifact to which the copyleft clause applies.
On the far end of the copyleft spectrum are licenses like the [GNU Affero
General Public License][AGPL], which extends the <abbr title="GNU General Public
License">GPL</abbr> to apply to software used over a network, such as databases,
and considers users of that software "recipients" of the software, who are thus
entitled to receive the source code.
and considers end users of that software "recipients" of the software, who are
thus entitled to receive the source code.

[AGPL]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

@@ -98,7 +99,8 @@ conditions permitted by its license, and will likely be limited to the use of
weak copyleft works. For example, if your software depends on a library which
uses the <abbr title="GNU Lesser General Public License">LGPL</abbr>, you may
use any license for your own work but need to share changes you make to the
library itself. If the software uses the GPL or AGPL, you will be more
library itself when you distribute the software to third parties. If the
software uses the GPL or AGPL, you will be more
constrained in your approach. Read the license terms carefully and consult a
lawyer if you are unsure how to proceed.

-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH 2/3] Minor spelling improvements Export this patch

---
 content/learn/copyleft.md | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/learn/copyleft.md b/content/learn/copyleft.md
index 2c4072e..c97c7c3 100644
--- a/content/learn/copyleft.md
+++ b/content/learn/copyleft.md
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ changes to those specific files under the same license terms.

[MPL]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/

A somewhat stronger example is the [GNU Lesser General Public License][LGPL],
A somewhat stronger copyleft example is the [GNU Lesser General Public License][LGPL],
which deals specifically with software libraries. These libraries are compiled
into an aggregate software artifact, such as a shared object or static archive,
and the copyleft terms applies to this entire artifact. However, when this is
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ The simplest way to re-use copyleft works is to apply its license to your own
work and distribute it accordingly.

If you do not want to do this, you can only use a copyleft work under the
conditions permitted by its license, and will likely be limited to the use of
conditions permitted by its license, which will likely limit you to the use of
weak copyleft works. For example, if your software depends on a library which
uses the <abbr title="GNU Lesser General Public License">LGPL</abbr>, you may
use any license for your own work but need to share changes you make to the
-- 
2.41.0

[PATCH 3/3] OSS & FS are 'almost' completely compatible Export this patch

---
 content/learn/_index.md | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/content/learn/_index.md b/content/learn/_index.md
index 8775d5e..19be77c 100644
--- a/content/learn/_index.md
+++ b/content/learn/_index.md
@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ in its focus, and free software is more about the users. Nevertheless, the two
movements are closely related and often work together. Each movement provides a
different view of software freedom, but in practice nearly all software which is
considered free software is also considered open source and vice-versa. The Open
Source definition and the four freedoms are compatible with one another.
Source definition and the four freedoms are almost completely compatible with
one another.

The two movements as a whole are often referred to as "free and open source
software", or "FOSS".
-- 
2.41.0
Thanks!

To git@git.sr.ht:~sircmpwn/writefreesoftware.org
   e3e9c92..0784a82  master -> master