From eb8a2ddb6fcc90c8b457fb3404bc5292f8b08aba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ian Valentin Christensen <valentianchristensen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:54:45 +0100
Subject: update abstract and fix introduction of copyleft principle for
 clarity of method

---
 report.qmd | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

(limited to 'report.qmd')

diff --git a/report.qmd b/report.qmd
index 85a1966..0995b48 100644
--- a/report.qmd
+++ b/report.qmd
@@ -113,11 +113,11 @@ With the rise of information technology,
 non-physical creations are being shared more widely than ever before.
 These works are shared under various different normative guiding principles,
 but among them,
-the four freedoms defining free software promise universal guiding principles
+the four freedoms central to free software promise universal guiding principles
 for sharing with the greatest degree of freedom to use, modify,
 distribute and improve software.
 Copyleft is an additional principle that ensures works derived
-from free software to also uphold the four freedoms.
+from free software also uphold the four freedoms.
 
 This project investigates the meta-ethical and normative implications
 of different formulations of the principle of copyleft.
@@ -126,25 +126,26 @@ deontology, consequentialism and contractualism.
 Then, through systematic ethical analysis,
 the moral defensibility of the copyleft principle is derived
 based on each of the three normative theories.
-After extrapolating relevant necessary commitments and principles
+After identifying relevant necessary commitments and principles
 from the results of the analysis,
 the method of reflective equilibrium is applied to adjust
-commitments and principles to arrive at a morally defensible position
-of copyleft within each of the three normative theories.
+commitments and principles to ensure coherence and consistency
+within each of the three normative theories.
 
-The contractualist approach used a particularly strong formulation
+The contractualist approach used a strong formulation
 of the copyleft principle during analysis,
 but this was adjusted into a more moderate but still strong position
 that the four freedoms should be made the moral default when sharing software.
 The deontological analysis proved fruitful,
 as the reflective equilibrium did not bring change to the principle.
 The consequentialist approach was initially compatible with the principle of copyleft,
-except for cases, in a utilitarian measure,
-where the four freedoms might affect the ability for society
-to improve it's standard of living more than otherwise.
+except for cases where, under a utilitarian perspective,
+the four freedoms could potentially limit societal efficiency,
+economic growth, or broader welfare outcomes
 
-The project concludes that all of the normative theories
-can be made compatible with some formulation of the principle of copyleft.
+The project concludes that each of the normative theories
+can be made compatible with some version of the copyleft principle,
+though the strength and formulation of the principle vary across the theories.
 
 <!--
 Open Source is a popular praxis for sharing creative resources.
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

