Merge branch 'syllabus-fixes' into 'master'

fixed typos + grammar in 4_licenses.md

See merge request ldricot/lingi2401!313

syllabus/4_licenses.md

 # Software and license
 
-If you take an apple from a shop, it’s one apple less for someone else. This economical concept is called "rival good". Two persons cannot befenit from the same rival good at the same time. Taking a rival good without paying for it is called "stealing".
+If you take an apple from a shop, it’s one apple less for someone else. This economical concept is called "rival good". Two persons cannot benefit from the same rival good at the same time. Taking a rival good without paying for it is called "stealing".
 
 On the other hand, some economical goods are "non-rival". A toll for crossing a bridge, for example. If you manage to sneake under the barrier and cross the bridge without paying, are you stealing something? In fact, if nobody notices it, nothing has changed in the world. There’s no victim. It might be illegal and/or immoral but it is clearly not "stealing".
 
@@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ Computers have always been rival goods. In fact, there were so big that nobody c
 
 Slowly, software became more and more complex and the idea of "portability" appeared. Maybe we could share how we use our computers and use the same software. UNIX was built with this exact philosophy.
 
-Software were not seen as economical goods in the same sense as instructions to use your dishwasher are not something sold. It seems obvious that if you write instructions to use your own dishwasher, that you paid, you would never sold them. But it could be useful to share them with someone having the same or a similar dishwasher. Programmers were thus sharing without even thinking much about the business of software. Business was, after all, selling computers. And the more software, the more people will be encouraged to buy computers.
+Software were not seen as economical goods in the same sense as instructions to use your dishwasher are not something sold. It seems obvious that, if you write instructions to use your own dishwasher, that you paid for, you would never sell them. But it could be useful to share them with someone having the same or a similar dishwasher. Programmers were thus sharing without even thinking much about the business of software. Business was, after all, selling computers. And the more software, the more people will be encouraged to buy computers.
 
 In 1976, Bill Gates tried to fight this philosophy by instituting software as a real business.
 
-But how could you sell something than could be copied nearly for free? If you sold it once, the first customer could copy it and pass it to friends.
+But how could you sell something that could be copied nearly for free? If you sold it once, the first customer could copy it and pass it to friends.
 
 Hence came the concept of license.
 
@@ -32,26 +32,26 @@ Richard Stallman had a hard time making friends when he was young. Computer nerd
 
 He could not fight back the fact that software could be copyrighted. But he knew that a license was a contract. And that you could always write your own contract.
 
-So he imagined a contract that would give you the freedom to modify and redistribute a software. In fact, he even managed to write that contract in a way that would guarantee that the software stay "free".
+Therefore, he imagined a contract that would give you the freedom to modify and redistribute a software. In fact, he even managed to write that contract in a way that would guarantee that the software stays "free".
 
-This contract was called the General Public License (GPL) and software that respected the freedom of the users were called "Free Software".
+This contract was called the General Public License (GPL), and software that respected the freedom of the users were called "Free Software".
 
 According to RMS, a "Free Software" had four basic freedoms:
 
-1. The right to use how you want it
-2. The right to study (requiring the source code)
-3. The right to modify
-4. The right to redistribute
+1. The right to use it how you want it
+2. The right to study it (requiring the source code)
+3. The right to modify it
+4. The right to redistribute it
 
 The 4 freedoms of Free Software are extremely important. If you don’t have those four freedoms, you will quickly hit arbitrary limitations. Those four freedoms are, in facts, only a clever way to explicit the "right to use the software with full control over it".
 
-The GPL not only provided those 4 freedoms, it also ensured that those freedoms would be preserved by stating explicitely in the conditinos of the contract that should the user redistribute the software to someone else, she should provide those same freedom to that other person. This is the concept of "copyleft" were the only restriction you have to agree is… to not create any restriction. You have all the freedoms on the software except the freedom of taking away some freedoms for others. You cannot use a GPL code in a proprietary software. If you do, the proprietary software would automatically be "contaminated" and become GPL.
+The GPL not only provided those 4 freedoms. It also ensured that those freedoms would be preserved, by stating explicitely in the conditions of the contract: should the user redistribute the software to someone else, he should provide those same freedoms to that other person. This concept is named "copyleft", where the only restriction you have to agree to is… to not create any restrictions. You have all the freedoms of the software, except the freedom of taking away some of these freedoms from others. You cannot use a GPL code in a proprietary software. If you do, the proprietary software would automatically be "contaminated" and become GPL.
 
-Some license would soon appear that would be Free Software but without guaranting the freedom. Examples include BSD and MIT licenses that
+Some license would soon appear. They would be grnting the access to Free Software but without guaranteeing the freedom that comes with it. Examples include BSD and MIT licenses. [TO-DO]
 
 The word "free" should be understood as in "freedom", not as in "free beer". That’s why the french/spanish world "libre" is often used to clarify the meaning. FLOSS means : "Free and Libre Open Source Software".
 
-It is important to note that nothing prevent to sell free software. As long as you give those rights to your customers, you can sell the software. Richard Stallman himself earned a living for multiple years by selling copy of Emacs, at a time were Internet connections were rares. You would send him money and an enveloppe and he would send you a disk with the software.
+It is important to note that nothing prevents anyone from selling free software. As long as you give those same rights to your customers, you can sell the software. Richard Stallman himself earned a living for multiple years by selling copy of Emacs, at a time were Internet connections were rares. You would send him money and an enveloppe, and he would send you a disk with the software.
 
 But "Free Software" was often confused with "Freeware", softwares that are proprietary but distributed freely (often as a limited version of a paying proprietary software). People building Free Software were looking for a clarification. 
 

syllabus/5_opensource.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens coined the term Open Source hoping that this would convince the industry that Free Software was not only for moneyless kids and punks. There was a real business behind it.
 
-Since the start, Richard Stallman really worried that the word "open source" would hide the fact that Free Software were about freedoms, not about technicalities. By hiding the word "free", we would loose the freedoms.
+From the start, Richard Stallman was really worried that the word "open source" would hide the fact that Free Software were about freedoms, not about technicalities. By hiding the word "free", we would loose the freedoms.
 
 In insight, he was perfectly right.