punch up summary

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/_posts/2021-03-24-non-fsf-copyleft.md b/_posts/2021-03-24-non-fsf-copyleft.md
index a629788..918eb59 100644
--- a/_posts/2021-03-24-non-fsf-copyleft.md
+++ b/_posts/2021-03-24-non-fsf-copyleft.md
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ The Free Software Foundation has decided they'd rather hang out with a sex pest
 Let's look at the copyleft licenses they didn't write and see how they're used.
 
 I'll be using the [Blue Oak Council's list of copyleft licenses](https://blueoakcouncil.org/copyleft) here, because I don't know of a good other way to find specifically copyleft licenses.
-I'll be searching GitHub for `filename:LICENSE "<some snippet from the license>"` and then seeing if anything notable turns up.
+I'll be searching GitHub for `filename:LICENSE "<some snippet from the license>"` or checking Wikipedia and then seeing if anything notable turns up.
 
 ## Maximal Copyleft
 
@@ -48,7 +48,10 @@ I'll be searching GitHub for `filename:LICENSE "<some snippet from the license>"
 
 ## Summary
 
-for maximal copyleft ("must publish all changes, even those for internal use"), [Parity](https://spdx.org/licenses/Parity-7.0.0.html) is probably the most promising future license.
+for maximal copyleft ("must publish source, even if only changing for internal use"), [Parity](https://spdx.org/licenses/Parity-7.0.0.html) is probably the most promising future license.
+
 for network copyleft ("must offer source to users even across a network"), the [European Union Public License](https://spdx.org/licenses/EUPL-1.2.html) is already seeing some adoption.
+
 for "strong" copyleft ("must offer source to users even if just linking as a library"), there are no good options because the GPL has been the only game in town for ages.
+
 for "weak" copyleft ("must offer source to users"), the [Mozilla Public License](https://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0.html) looks like it has a good chance of continuing to exist and be used by actual projeccts for a nice long while.