Commits

Shlomi Fish committed 047d9fb

Spell-checked more.

Comments (0)

Files changed (6)

bin/spell-checker-iface.sh

 #!/bin/bash
 find dest/t2-homepage/ -name '*.html' -or -name '*.xhtml' |
     ( LC_ALL=C sort  ) |
-    perl -lne 'print if 1..m#philosophy/computers/index#' |
+    perl -lne 'print if 1..m#philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/supp1/index#' |
     grep -vP 'guide2ee/undergrad' |
     grep -vP '(?:humour/TheEnemy/(?:The-Enemy-(?:English-)?rev|TheEnemy))' |
     grep -vP '(?:humour/by-others/(?:English-is-a-Crazy-Language|darien|hitchhiker|how-many-newsgroup-readers|oded-c|s-stands-for-simple|technion-bit-1|top-12-things-likely|was-the-death-star-attack|grad-student-jokes-from-jnoakes))' |

lib/docbook/4/xml/foss-licences-wars.xml

                     by the Perl foundation is used by <ulink url="http://www.parrot.org/">the Parrot Virtual Machine</ulink>,
                     some Perl 6 implementations, and other projects. The
                     original Artistic Licence has problematic phrasing,
-                    and is unrecommended for general use, unless possibly
+                    and is not recommended for general use, unless possibly
                     when dually licensed with a different licence (as is the
                     case for perl 5 and many Perl modules on the CPAN).
                 </para>
         <para>
             The GNU General Public Licence (GPL) and GNU Lesser General
             Public Licence (LGPL) contain many additional restrictions to the
-            concept of copyleft, and are very mis-understood, over-hyped, and
+            concept of copyleft, and are very misunderstood, over-hyped, and
             don’t maintain compatibility with newer versions. Even
             <ulink url="http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.642822.36">the LGPL is
             reportedly problematic</ulink>
             compatible with GPLv2 and above, instead of the GPL and the
             Artistic 2.0 (or above) licence instead of the LGPL. And naturally
             permissive, non-copyleft, open-source licences such as the MIT
-            X11 Licence are an option. What the SleepyCat licence says
+            X11 Licence are an option. What the Sleepycat licence says
             is that code distributed under it, must remain under it, and
             that one must release the source code for publicly-distributed
             binaries that link against it. However, from my understanding, as

lib/docbook/5/xml/foss-licences-wars-rev2.xml

                 <date>21 August 2009</date>
                 <authorinitials>shlomif</authorinitials>
                 <revremark>
-                    Fixed some small typos and mis-phrasings.
+                    Fixed some small typos and misphrasings.
                 </revremark>
             </revision>
 
                     by the Perl foundation is used by <link xlink:href="http://www.parrot.org/">the Parrot Virtual Machine</link>,
                     some Perl 6 implementations, and other projects. The
                     original Artistic Licence has problematic phrasing,
-                    and is unrecommended for general use, unless possibly
+                    and is not recommended for general use, unless possibly
                     when dually licensed with a different licence (as is the
                     case for perl 5 and many Perl modules on the CPAN).
                 </para>
         <para>
             The GNU General Public Licence (GPL) and GNU Lesser General
             Public Licence (LGPL) contain many additional restrictions to the
-            concept of copyleft, and are very mis-understood, over-hyped, and
+            concept of copyleft, and are very misunderstood, over-hyped, and
             don’t maintain compatibility with newer versions. Even
             <link xlink:href="http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.642822.36">the LGPL is
             reportedly problematic</link>
             compatible with GPLv2 and above, instead of the GPL and the
             Artistic 2.0 (or above) licence instead of the LGPL. And naturally
             permissive, non-copyleft, open-source licences such as the MIT
-            X11 Licence are an option. What the SleepyCat licence says
+            X11 Licence are an option. What the Sleepycat licence says
             is that code distributed under it, must remain under it, and
             that one must release the source code for publicly-distributed
             binaries that link against it. However, from my understanding, as

lib/hunspell/whitelist1.txt

 x86
 x86-64
 x86-and-DOS
+
+====dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/foss-licences-wars/index.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/foss-licences-wars/other-opinions.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/foss-licences-wars/strong-copyleft-and-threats-to-foss.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/foss-licences-wars/types-of-licences.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/foss-licences-wars/uncertainty.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/foss-licences-wars/which-licence-to-choose.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/foss-licences-wars/why-I-prefer-the-mit-x11-licence.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/index.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/rev2/foss-licences-wars-rev2/index.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/rev2/foss-licences-wars-rev2/other-opinions.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/rev2/foss-licences-wars-rev2/strong-copyleft-and-threats-to-foss.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/rev2/foss-licences-wars-rev2/types-of-licences.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/rev2/foss-licences-wars-rev2/uncertainty.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/rev2/foss-licences-wars-rev2/which-licence-to-choose.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/rev2/foss-licences-wars-rev2/why-I-prefer-the-mit-x11-licence.html,dest/t2-homepage/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/supp1/index.html
+
+3D
+90s
+acting-out-of-one’s-own-best-self-interest
+Advogato
+Affero
+AGPL
+AGPLed
+ai
+Aronovich
+BASICA
+BIOS
+blogs
+bsd
+BSDL
+CCalc
+ccna
+Coar
+COM
+Copycenter
+CSee
+dazjorz
+DCSNS
+DFSG
+DFSG-for-non-software
+don’t-be-a-sucker
+Dotan
+edu
+Efrat
+Elad
+fc-solve
+gNewSense
+gpl
+GPL-incompatible
+GPL-like
+GPL's
+GPLv2-only
+GPLv3-and-above
+GPLv3-only
+GPL-version-2-or-above
+GWBASIC
+Hakuna
+Hamakor
+IANAL
+ICSNS
+IPC
+iPhone
+ISC
+LGPLv2
+LGPL-version-2
+libxml2
+Matata
+MiniSQL
+misphrasings
+mit
+MPL
+mSQL
+Neonazis
+non-GPL-compatible
+non-GPL-Compatible
+non-GPL-compatible-but-still-open-source
+non-GPL-like-code
+OpenSolaris
+OpenSSH
+O’ReillyNet
+Perlbuzz
+Ph
+post-hoc
+QBasic
+SGI
+shlomif-tech
+Sleepycat
+sourcerer
+sourceware
+strong-copyleft
+UI
+web-apps
+Whatsup
+XT
+you-can-link-it-against-everything-as-long-as-you-keep-inclusive-code-LGPLed
+flamatory

t2/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/index.html.wml

 
 <li>
 <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/08/25/1356213/Getting-Through-the-FOSS-License-Minefield">On Slashdot - “Getting Through the FOSS
-License Minfield”</a> - thanks to
+License Minefield”</a> - thanks to
 <a href="http://dotancohen.com/">Dotan Cohen</a> for submitting it there.
 </li>
 

t2/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/supp1/index.html.wml

 the bottom of all the GPL’s nuances, and that I thought the public domain was
 preferable, because I didn’t care too much about people changing the licence
 to something else, or using it in their own non-free/non-GPL-compatible
-software. A lot of people I have talked with since have shown many mis-
-understandings of the GPL.
+software. A lot of people I have talked with since have shown many
+misunderstandings of the GPL.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 <p>
 To sum it up here, I don’t see why contributing to one’s neighbour (or the
 public at large), willingly and on one’s free time (which may be called
-“donation”, “philantropism” or even “altruism”) and for a non-harmful cause
+“donation”, “philanthropy” or even “altruism”) and for a non-harmful cause
 can be considered as being a “sucker”. Everybody is able to use GPLed software
 of various originators too free-of-charge or put it into good use in many legal
 and legitimate ways and yet you don’t hear that often that people who develop