More web page tweaks.

2 files changed, 7 insertions, 35 deletions

diff --git a/www/about.html b/www/about.html
index 4dae2d2..4bbc180 100755
--- a/www/about.html
+++ b/www/about.html
@@ -93,4 +93,11 @@ versions ("tip" is the current development version).</p>
 <a href=http://www2.them.com:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/toybox>mailing
 list</a> are also good ways to track what's going on with the project.</p>
 
+<b><h2><a name="toycans" />What's the background image on the web page?</h2></b>
+
+<p>It's <a href=toycans-big.jpg>carefully stacked soda cans</a>.  Specifically,
+it's a bunch of the original "Coke Zero" and "Pepsi One" cans, circa 2006,
+stacked to spell out the binary values of the ascii string "Toybox" (with
+null terminator at the bottom).</p>
+
 <!--#include file="footer.html" -->
diff --git a/www/license.html b/www/license.html
index 8dcd307..d67269d 100755
--- a/www/license.html
+++ b/www/license.html
@@ -64,41 +64,6 @@ being explicit about it.)</p>
 <p>If you're wondering why this particular clarification exists,
 there's a <a href=licenserant.html>longer explanation</a>.</p>
 
-<p>The reason for this section is that
-<a href="http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150">what the FSF did to Mepis</a> was inexcusable.  (Further discussed
-in <a href="http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-June/022797.html">this
-thread</a>.)  Mepis partnered with Ubuntu, put out a press release quoting
-Ubuntu's founder about how cool the partnership was, and then pointed to
-Ubuntu's source repository for packages it was using unmodified Ubuntu versions
-of.  As far as we're concerned, Mepis didn't do anything wrong, and the FSF
-was a bully.  The FSF was wrong when it tried to make an example out of a
-company that was acting in good faith.</p>
-
-<p>To make sure the FSF doesn't pick on anyone else against our wishes, we're
-clarifying that if you didn't modify the source code, and the binaries you're
-distributing can be entirely regenerated from a public upstream source,
-pointing to that upstream source in good faith is good enough for us, as long
-as they don't mind the extra bandwidth and the correct source code stays
-available at that location for the duration of your responsiblity to
-redistribute source.</p>
-
-<p>This doesn't mean it's fair for a Fortune 500 company to point millions of
-people at somebody's home DSL line (certainly not without asking first).
-And if the source that's available there isn't the complete source you used
-to produce your binaries, you haven't fulfilled your obligations either.
-And if the code stops being available at that location, you're not off the
-hook and have to find a new location or put up your own mirror.  And obviously
-it has to be the _right_ source code (if you modified it, we want the patch,
-and claiming you didn't modify it when you actually did is fraud).</p>
-
-<p>So this is not a "get out of jail free" card: It's still your responsibility
-to make the complete corresponding source available.  We're just saying you can
-reasonably delegate to something like Sourceforge or ibilbio, and as long as
-everyone who wants the source can get it, we're happy.  If the site you point
-to objects or goes down, responsibility obviously reverts to you.  But if this
-project needs mirrors, we'll _ask_.  (Most likely we'll ask someone like
-sourceforge, OSL, ISC, ibiblio, archive.org...)</p>
-
 <p>Finally, <b>section 9 does not apply to this project.</b>  We're specifying
 a specific version, it's version 2.  There is no "or later versions" clause to
 require interpreting, so none of that triggers for us.</p>