svn commit: r871480 - in /websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk: cgi-bin/ content/ content/why/why_compliance.html

[bu...@apache.org]

Author: buildbot
Date: Sat Jul 27 21:23:40 2013
New Revision: 871480

Log:
Staging update by buildbot for ooo-site

Modified:
    websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/cgi-bin/   (props changed)
    websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/   (props changed)
    websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html

Propchange: websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/cgi-bin/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- cms:source-revision (original)
+++ cms:source-revision Sat Jul 27 21:23:40 2013
@@ -1 +1 @@
-1507673
+1507714

Propchange: websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- cms:source-revision (original)
+++ cms:source-revision Sat Jul 27 21:23:40 2013
@@ -1 +1 @@
-1507673
+1507714

Modified: websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html
==============================================================================
--- websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html (original)
+++ websites/staging/ooo-site/trunk/content/why/why_compliance.html Sat Jul 27 21:23:40 2013
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
 <p>The software industry watchdog, the Business Software Alliance, <a href="https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us">offers cash rewards</a> to disgruntled employees who confidentially turn in their 
 employer (or ex-employer) for software piracy.</p>
 <p>They call this campaign, "Bust your Boss!"  Rewards can range up to $1 million.</p>
-<p>As you probably already know, you don't own commercial software in the same way you own a chair or a desk.  Instead, you license the software from the vendor, and this license gives you
+<p>As you probably already know, you don't own software in the same way you own a chair or a desk.  Instead, you license the software from the publisher, and this license gives you
 permission to use the software, but only under terms specified by the license.  These terms typically say how many users or PC's may access the software.  The terms might even include
 a clause allowing the vendor to audit your usage of the software.</p>
 <p>In order to avoid the expense and penalties of a BSA audit, organizations are increasingly adopting Software Asset Management (SAM) practices to ensure that their use of commercial 
@@ -39,10 +39,10 @@ commercial software.</p>
 organizations, since tracking application usage is not needed.</p>
 <p>However, organizations that use open source software and also develop and distribute their own proprietary software, can find themselves in trouble due to the viral nature (copyleft)
 of some open source licenses.  If one of your employees or contractors inadvertently includes some copyleft code in your proprietary product, then you could be required by that license
-to make the source code for your entire product freely available to the public.  That could kill your business.</p>
+to make the source code for your entire product freely available to the public.</p>
 <p>This is not just a theoretical concern.  As aggressively as the BSA protects the interests of its commercial members, the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) protects the GPL license 
-in <a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/">high-profile lawsuits against large corporations</a>, including Westinghouse, Samsung and Best Buy.  The Free Software Foundation (FSF), in their <a href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2012/fall/why-gpl-compliance-work-matters">November 2012 Bulletin</a>, 
-writes about their expansion of "active license enforcement".</p>
+in <a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/">high-profile lawsuits against large corporations</a>.  The Free Software Foundation (FSF), in their <a href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2012/fall/why-gpl-compliance-work-matters">November 2012 Bulletin</a>, writes about their expansion of 
+"active license enforcement".</p>
 <p>So the cost of compliance with copyleft code can be even greater than the use of proprietary software, since an organization risks being forced to make the source code
 for their proprietary product public and available for anyone to use, free of charge.  To mitigate this risk requires more employee education, more approval cycles, more internal audits 
 and more worries.  This is the increased cost of compliance when copyleft software is brought into an organization.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is just the reality of 
@@ -52,8 +52,8 @@ using open source software under these l
 licenses, generally called "permissive" licenses, are much more friendly for corporate use.  These licenses include the MIT and BSD licenses, as well as the 
 <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0">Apache Software License 2.0</a> that we use for Apache OpenOffice.</p>
 <p>Like other open source licenses, the Apache License explicitly allows you to copy and redistribute the covered product, without any license fees or royalties.  But because it is a
-permissive license, it also allows you to prepare and distribute derivative products, without any requirement to make your own source code public.  So both BSA and SFLC/FSF risks
-are eliminated, and the cost, to your business, of license compliance is drastically reduced.</p>
+permissive license, it also allows you to prepare and distribute derivative products, without requiring you to make your own source code public.  So both BSA and SFLC/FSF risks
+are eliminated, and the cost, to your business, of license compliance is greatly reduced.</p>
   </div>
 <!--#include virtual="/footer.html" -->
 </body>