rework article draft

src/content/2024-09-09-what-is-open-source.md

@@ -24,23 +24,23 @@ Git allowed developers to work independently on different parts of the codebase
 
 ## Understanding Open Source Licensing
 
-Open source licensing plays a pivotal role in defining how software can be used, modified, and redistributed. The most influential licenses, including the [GNU General Public License](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html) (GPL), emphasize the philosophy of [copyleft](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html) (a play on words of "copyright" in that it prioritizes user freedom instead of restrictive intellectual property rights). This principle ensures that any derivative work of a GPL-licensed project must also be distributed under the same license, thereby maintaining the freedom of the software across generations of modification. The Free Software Foundation's philosophy emphasizes the users' rights to run, study, modify, and share software freely.
+Open source licensing plays a pivotal role in defining how software can be used, modified, and redistributed. The most influential licenses, including the [GNU General Public License](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html) (GPL), emphasize the philosophy of [copyleft](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html) (a play on words of "copyright" in that it prioritizes user freedom instead of restrictive intellectual property rights). This principle ensures that any derivative work of a GPL-licensed project must also be distributed under the same license, thereby maintaining the freedom of the software across generations of modification. The GPL's underlying philosophy emphasizes the users' rights to run, study, modify, and share software freely.
 
 In contrast, proprietary software refers to software that is privately owned and controlled by an individual or a company. The source code is usually kept confidential, and users are restricted from modifying, sharing, or distributing the software. Typically, users must purchase a license to use proprietary software, and the terms of this license dictate how the software can be used. Examples of proprietary software include Microsoft's [Windows](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows) operating system and Adobe's suite of applications, where users must pay for access and comply with strict usage terms.
 
-The GPL is considered a strong copyleft license because any software incorporating GPL-licensed code must itself be GPL-compliant. By extension, any software derived from a GPL-licensed project must uphold the FSF's user freedoms. Alternatively, the [GNU Lesser General Public License](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html) (LGPL) is a weaker copyleft license, allowing proprietary software to link to open-source libraries licensed under LGPL without requiring the proprietary code to be open-source as well.
+The GPL is considered a strong copyleft license because any software incorporating GPL-licensed code must itself be GPL-compliant. By extension, any software derived from a GPL-licensed project must enforce the same user freedoms (right to run, study, modify, and share). Alternatively, the [GNU Lesser General Public License](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html) (LGPL) is a weaker copyleft license, allowing proprietary software to link to open-source libraries licensed under LGPL without requiring the proprietary code to be open-source as well. The lesser variant is intended for niche or low-barrier-to-entry applications where institutions that wish to circumvent the GPL's user freedoms may do so easily; simply put, it is lenient enough to incentivize institutions to use open-source software, even in cases where non-GPL alternatives are already widely available or where the cost of develop a proprietary solution is low.
 
 On the other hand, permissive licenses such as the [MIT License](https://opensource.org/license/mit) and the [BSD License](https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause) offer more flexibility. These licenses allow users to modify and incorporate the code into proprietary software, as long as the original copyright notice is maintained. The MIT and BSD licenses are popular in academia and industry for their simplicity and permissiveness, promoting widespread adoption and integration.
 
 ## Advantages & Disadvantages of Open Source Licensing
 
-Open source software offers several advantages, particularly when licensed under the copyleft philosophy, such as that of the GNU General Public License (GPL). One significant benefit of copyleft is that it legally ensures software, along with its modifications, remains free and open for all users. According to the GNU Project, when developers improve a copyleft-licensed program, they cannot distribute it in proprietary form. Instead, they must either share it as free software or not distribute it at all. Most organizations, when faced with this requirement, choose to release the improved version as free software rather than discard it. This ensures that the code and the associated freedoms (to use, modify, and redistribute) remain inseparable from the program's legal terms, fostering a culture of collective improvement and openness​.
+Open source software offers several advantages, particularly when licensed under the copyleft philosophy, such as that of the GNU General Public License (GPL). One significant benefit of copyleft is that it legally ensures software, along with its modifications, remains free and open for all users. According to the GNU Project, when developers improve a copyleft-licensed program, they cannot distribute it in proprietary form. Instead, they must either share it as free software or not distribute it at all. Most organizations, when faced with this dilemma, choose to release the improved version as free software rather than discard it. This ensures that the code and the associated freedoms (to use, modify, and redistribute) remain inseparable from the program's legal terms, fostering a culture of collective improvement and openness​.
 
 GPL effectively ensures that user freedoms are protected, especially within large companies and projects. For instance, a legal case concerning Verizon had found that the company used open-source components within their networking devices but failed to provide access to the modified source code as required by the GPL (see [Wikipedia: Open Source Litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation)). Legal action was taken, and Verizon was compelled to release the source code to the public. This not only reaffirmed the legal power of the GPL but also ensured that Verizon's contributions remained accessible to the broader community, a key advantage of the copyleft model.
 
-Another advantage of copyleft licenses is that developers can attribute copyrights to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), an organization that uses its legal resources to ensure that these licenses are upheld. The FSF monitors for violations, taking legal action when necessary to ensure that GPL-licensed software remains accessible and open to the public.
+Another advantage of copyleft licenses is that developers can attribute copyrights to the [Free Software Foundation](https://www.fsf.org/) (FSF), the parent organization of GPL and the GNU project, which uses its legal resources to ensure that user freedoms are upheld. The FSF monitors for violations, taking legal action when necessary to ensure that GPL-licensed software remains accessible and open to the public.
 
-However, open source software, especially under copyleft licenses, presents certain disadvantages. One of the primary challenges is its restrictive nature with regard to monetary interests. Since the code must remain open, developers cannot profit directly from selling proprietary versions of their software. As a result, free software developers often rely on alternative revenue streams, such as donations from patrons or charging for access to user or developer documentation. These methods can be unstable, especially for smaller projects without significant visibility or community backing​.
+However, open source software, especially under copyleft licenses, presents certain disadvantages. One of the primary challenges is its restrictive nature with regard to monetary interests. Since the code must remain open, developers cannot profit directly from selling proprietary versions of their software. Whilst charging for software is not prohibited by open source licenses, the freedom to distribute effectively means that users have the right to share free versions among themselves. As a result, free software developers often rely on alternative revenue streams, such as donations from patrons or charging for access to user or developer documentation. These methods can be unstable, especially for smaller projects without significant visibility or community backing​.
 
 ## UF Open Source Club
 The University of Florida Open Source Club (OSC) is dedicated to fostering a collaborative environment for students interested in open-source software development. Founded in 2016, the club encourages problem-solving through open-source projects, aiming to contribute to both the local University of Florida community and the broader open-source ecosystem. All club projects are released publicly under nonrestrictive open-source licenses, empowering user freedoms by allowing anyone to use, modify, and distribute the software.