Update in the "which license is best" section as it seems Debian people have

made up their mind. Spell-checked as well.

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/docs/DISTRO-DILEMMA b/docs/DISTRO-DILEMMA
index 80adb06da..84581cedd 100644
--- a/docs/DISTRO-DILEMMA
+++ b/docs/DISTRO-DILEMMA
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
-  Date: September 5, 2005
+  Date: September 30, 2005
   Author: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
   URL: http://curl.haxx.se/legal/distro-dilemma.html
 
 Condition
 
- This document is written to describe the sitution as it is right now. libcurl
- 7.14.1 is currently the latest version available. Things may (or perhaps
- will) of course change in the future.
+ This document is written to describe the situation as it is right
+ now. libcurl 7.14.1 is currently the latest version available. Things may (or
+ perhaps will) of course change in the future.
 
  This document reflects my view and understanding of these things. Please tell
  me where and how you think I'm wrong, and I'll try to correct my mistakes.
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Background
  The Free Software Foundation has deemed the Original BSD license[1] to be
  "incompatible"[2] with GPL[3]. I'd rather say it is the other way around, but
  the point is the same: if you distribute a binary version of a GPL program,
- it MUST NOT be linked with any Original BSD-licenced parts or
+ it MUST NOT be linked with any Original BSD-licensed parts or
  libraries. Doing so will violate the GPL license. For a long time, very many
  GPL licensed programs have avoided this license mess by adding an
  exception[8] to their license. And many others have just closed their eyes
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Background
 Part of the Operating System
 
  This would not be a problem if the used lib would be considered part of the
- uderlying operating system, as then the GPL license has an exception
+ underlying operating system, as then the GPL license has an exception
  clause[6] that allows applications to use such libs without having to be
  allowed to distribute it or its sources. Possibly some distros will claim
  that OpenSSL is part of their operating system.
@@ -92,8 +92,13 @@ The Better License, Original BSD or LGPL?
  Instead, I think we should accept the fact that the SSL/TLS libraries and
  their different licenses will fit different applications and their authors
  differently depending on the applications' licenses and their general usage
- pattern (considering how LGPL libraries can be burdonsome for embedded
- systems usage).
+ pattern (considering how LGPL libraries for example can be burdensome for
+ embedded systems usage).
+
+ In Debian land, there seems to be a common opinion that LGPL is "maximally
+ compatible" with apps while Original BSD is not. Like this:
+
+        http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01417.html
 
 More SSL Libraries