www/licenses gplv3-the-program.html

[Dora Scilipoti]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Dora Scilipoti <dora>   21/12/17 08:19:12

Modified files:
        licenses       : gplv3-the-program.html 

Log message:
        Add missing colon. Add the word 'section' when mentioning '10'. Use 
<em> for emphasis instead of asterisk. Capitalize 'Draft' for consistency.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16

Patches:
Index: gplv3-the-program.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gplv3-the-program.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- gplv3-the-program.html      12 Apr 2014 12:39:51 -0000      1.15
+++ gplv3-the-program.html      17 Dec 2021 13:19:11 -0000      1.16
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 one program.</p>
 
 <p>In particular, this applies to the clause in section 10, paragraph 3
-of GPLv3 which states</p>
+of GPLv3 which states:</p>
 
 <blockquote><p>[Y]ou may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or
   counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
 readers have expressed particular concern about the consequences of
 such an interpretation for the new patent provisions of GPLv3,
 especially the patent termination condition found in the third
-paragraph 10 and the express patent license grant made by upstream
+paragraph of section 10 and the express patent license grant made by upstream
 contributors under the third paragraph of section 11.  This overbroad
 reading of &quot;the Program&quot; is incorrect, and contrary to our intent as
 the drafters of GPLv3.</p>
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@
 differently, such as by using &quot;a particular&quot; instead of
 &quot;any&quot;, but that would not have eliminated the need for thought.
 The phrase &quot;a particular work licensed under this License&quot;,
-regarded in isolation, would not necessarily signify *the* particular work
+regarded in isolation, would not necessarily signify <em>the</em> particular 
work
 received by a particular &quot;you&quot; in a particular act of licensing
 or distribution.  Our review of other free software licenses shows that
 they raise similar issues of interpretation, with words of general
@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@
 retaliation was criticized because it could apply to software patent
 lawsuits in which the accused software was unrelated to the software
 that was the subject of the license.  Seeing that there were no widely
-used licenses with which this would provide compatibility, in draft 3
+used licenses with which this would provide compatibility, in Draft 3
 we dropped broad patent retaliation from the range of GPL
 compatibility.</p>
 
@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 12:39:51 $
+$Date: 2021/12/17 13:19:11 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>