From b9f7a402a6a739fc7f0b8ca5022764cda5c4eff9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:53:29 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Rewrite paragraph for readability. --- compliance-guide.tex | 13 +++++++------ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/compliance-guide.tex b/compliance-guide.tex index a853161..b057014 100644 --- a/compliance-guide.tex +++ b/compliance-guide.tex @@ -1430,13 +1430,14 @@ the inquiry served other consulting purposes later. Feelings and opinions about this behavior are mixed within the larger copyleft community. Some see it as a reasonable business model and others -renounce it as corrupt behavior. However, from the point of view of a GPL -violator, the most important issue is to determine the motivations of the -enforcer. The COGEOs such as the FSF and Conservancy have made substantial +renounce it as corrupt behavior. Regardless, a GPL +violator should always immediately determine the motivations of the +enforcer via documented, verifiable facts. For example, COGEOs such as the FSF and Conservancy have made substantial public commitments to enforce in a way that is uniform, transparent, and -publicly documented. Since these organizations are public charities, they -are accountable to the IRS and the public at large in their annual Form 990 -filings, and everyone can examine their revenue models and scrutinize their +publicly documented. Furthermore, since these specific organizations are +public charities in the USA, they +are accountable to the IRS (and the public at large) in their annual Form 990 +filings. Everyone may examine their revenue models and scrutinize their work. However, entities and individuals who do GPL enforcement centered primarily