remove lines 159-163

Author: fkohrt

content_development/MAIN.md

@@ -154,13 +154,7 @@ The open source software movement, which splintered off in 1998, focuses on the
 
 Among multiple conclusions they arrive at, access to a program's source code is a shared one. Software thus may be considered _free_, _open source_, or both, according to agreed-on definitions by the Free Software Foundation ([FSF](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)) and the Open Source Initiative ([OSI](https://opensource.org/osd)). The FSF argues that free software is a subset of OSS, with only a [fraction](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html) being open source but nonfree.
 
-Thus, highlighting a particular license status of software in use—open source or free—is mostly about different philosophies, not about software not having the other status as well. Each movement has its share of problems explaining their term: _free_ means more than being gratis and _open source_ means more than having access to the source code. It should be mentioned as well that the exact differences between free and open source are probably unknown to many who probably stick to the term encountered first or more often without further differentiation. Bothe the [FSF](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html) as the European counterpart [FSFE](https://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs.html) provide a great deal of resources for further reading on the topic of software freedom.
-
-Both movements had and still have a lasting impact on how software is developed and used. This is entirely evident in the domain of software professionals, but also partially evident for end-users: many operating systems are based on _GNU/Linux_, people use _Mozilla Firefox_ as their web browser, _LibreOffice_ as their office suite and the _VLC media player_ as their program for watching videos.
-
-Besides a software license being free or open source, it may also contain a _copyleft_ clause. Copyleft wants to turn copyright upside down by repurposing copyright law for knowledge sharing. It is a question of wether modified versions of the original program should be published under the same license as well. For someone who believes in the user's freedom, is it better to aim for most permissive licensing (such as releasing in the public domain) and thus allowing others to limit the users of their derived versions again? Or better make the own work more restrictive in the first place (choose a copyleft license), contrary to the higher goal of freedom, but more resistant in the long run? Restrictions such as a copyleft clause are called [permissible restrictions](https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions). Quite imaginable, there are different opinions about them. More information on copyleft can be found on [copyleft.org](https://copyleft.org/).
-
-The aforementioned definitions have now become widely adopted, both by international governments, as well as some large organisations such as the [Mozilla Foundation](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/) and the [Wikimedia Foundation](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home). Major organisations in the FLOSS space include the UK's [Software Sustainability Institute](https://www.software.ac.uk/), who produce valuable resources such as their recent [Software Deposit Guidance for Researchers](https://softwaresaved.github.io/software-deposit-guidance/).
+Thus, highlighting a particular license status of software in use—open source or free—is mostly about different philosophies, not about software not having the other status as well. Each movement has its share of problems explaining their term: _free_ means more than being gratis and _open source_ means more than having access to the source code. The [FSF](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html) and the European counterpart [FSFE](https://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs.html) provide more information on this topic.
 
 ### For individual projects