From f167d0387a6d1a996b2403420a3fcd0125426976 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: donaldr3 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:55:06 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] multiple copy edits --- gpl-lgpl.tex | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index ee1760e..f6f33f6 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -1621,7 +1621,7 @@ programs under any license. Despite what you hear from its critics, the GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'd code-base does not impact the license of other programs. A programmer must -expended actual effort to cause a work to fall under the terms +expend actual effort to cause a work to fall under the terms of the GPL. Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software, as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are @@ -1633,7 +1633,7 @@ truly GPL'd. Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works. It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly obscured. Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by -William Faulkner, must presented to the reader as words in some +William Faulkner, must be presented to the reader as words in some human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work. A film, even one directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to have any value.