:githubbub: minor wording update

docs/about/githubbub.md

@@ -1,36 +1,43 @@
 ### GitHubbub!  GitHub Does Not Value Software Freedom.
 
-<div class="inline-img octoflop">![GitHub](/images/octoright-large.png "GitHubbub!")</div>
+<div class="inline-img octoflop">
+  ![GitHub](/images/octoright-large.png "GitHub logo rotated 270° to resemble a Copyright symbol")
+</div>
 
-If you hit this page expecting to have been taken to my GitHub profile, then
+If you hit this page expecting to have been taken to my GitHub profile,
-this is probably not what you were looking for.  But let me tell you why
+  then this is probably not what you were looking for;
-you're here.
+    but let me tell you why you're here.
 
-Before providing a link to something hosted on a service, it is wise to
+Before providing a link to something hosted on a service,
-consider whether doing so is a good idea---whether the service or website
+  it is important to consider whether the service or website is antithetical
-is antithetical to the message you are trying to send to your
+  to the message you are trying to convey to your readers/visitors,
-readers/visitors, or whether it deserves clarification.  There's a little
+    and whether it deserves clarification;
-bit of both here.
+   there's a little bit of both here.
 
-If you're looking for a host friendly toward free software, take a look at
+If you're looking for a host friendly toward free software,
-the [GNU ethical repository criteria][gnu-repo], which sets standards for
+  take a look at the [GNU ethical repository criteria][gnu-repo],
-acceptable hosts of parts of the [GNU operating system][gnu].
+    which sets standards for acceptable hosts to parts of the
+    [GNU operating system][gnu].
 
 
 #### Non-Free JavaScript
-[Free software][freesw] guarantees your freedom to study, modify, and share
+[Free software][freesw] guarantees your freedom to study,
-the software that you use.  We value these freedoms on the desktop, so why
+  modify,
-should we compromise when websites serve proprietary JavaScript
+  and share the software that you use.
-[just because it creates the illusion of remote execution][whyfreejs]?  When
+We value these freedoms on the desktop,
-you visit a website that serves JavaScript to the client, your web browser
+  so why should we compromise when websites serve proprietary JavaScript
-is automatically [downloading and executing (often without your permission)
+  [just because it creates the illusion of remote execution][whyfreejs]?
-untrusted software][jstrap].  If that JavaScript is not
+When you visit a website that serves JavaScript to the client,
-[freely licensed][librejs], then the software running in your web browser
+  your web browser is automatically [downloading and executing][jstrap]
-is proprietary.
+  (often without your permission) ephemeral, unsigned, untrusted software.
+If that JavaScript is not [freely licensed][librejs],
+  then the software running in your web browser is proprietary.
 
-**When you visit `github.com`, you download over 200kB of obfuscated code,
+**When you visit `github.com`,
-much of which is proprietary.**  This code provides many website features
+  you download over 200kB of obfuscated code,
-that are fairly essential, and *do not work with JavaScript disabled*:
+  much of which is proprietary.**
+This code provides many website features that are fairly essential,
+  and *do not work with JavaScript disabled*:
 
 - Change repository names or descriptions;
 - Delete repositories;
@@ -43,40 +50,46 @@ that are fairly essential, and *do not work with JavaScript disabled*:
 - And others.
 
 That is---GitHub forces you to run proprietary software in order to use much
-of their website.  This is unethical.
+  of their website.
+This is a bit startling for a host that owes its very existence to the
+  success and development of free software.
 
 #### Desire To Remain Non-Free
-I contacted GitHub back in April 2014, pointing out these concerns and
+I contacted GitHub back in April 2014 pointing out these concerns and
-asking if they would be able to either liberate their JavaScript, or make
+  asking if they would be able to either liberate their JavaScript or make
-GitHub's essential functionality work without JavaScript enabled.  The first
+  GitHub's essential functionality work without JavaScript enabled.
-response I received was from one of their "JavaScript Developers":
+The first response I received was from one of their "JavaScript Developers":
 
 > Hi Mike,
-> 
+>
 > Thanks for getting in touch with us here. Some of our internal projects are
 > specific to running GitHub, and as such will probably remain closed. We do
 > make an effort to open source projects that we create that we think would be
 > beneficial to the community, some of which is JavaScript.
-> 
+>
 > You can see a list of some of the open source projects that power GitHub
 > here:
-> 
+>
 > https://github.com/showcases/projects-that-power-github
 
-This response is unfortunately misguided: yes, it is good that GitHub
+This response is unfortunately misguided---yes,
-produces free software, but it is a false assumption that their proprietary
+  it is good that GitHub produces free software,
-code would serve no benefit to the community: the very existence of
+    but it is a false assumption that their proprietary code would serve no
-their proprietary software
+    benefit to the community:
-[gives them unjust control over their users][unjust].  Relinquishing that
+      the very existence of their proprietary software [gives them unjust
-control is of benefit to the community.
+        control over their users][unjust];
+          relinquishing that control is of benefit to the community.
 
-I replied to the above message, clarifying my point.  After receiving no
+I replied to the above message to clarify my point.
-response, I forwarded the e-mail to GitHub's original founders: [Tom
+After receiving no response,
-Preston-Werner][tom], [Chris Wanstrath][chris], and [PJ Hyett][pj].  The
+  I forwarded the e-mail to GitHub's original founders:
-response I received from Chris was blunt and discouraging:
+    [Tom Preston-Werner][tom],
+    [Chris Wanstrath][chris],
+    and [PJ Hyett][pj].
+The response I received from Chris was blunt and discouraging:
 
 > Hey Mike,
-> 
+>
 > We have no plans to release github.com's JavaScript as free software at
 > this time, nor do we have plans to remove the site's dependence on
 > JavaScript. Thanks for the interest.