Add existing project situation, leave 1 permissive, 1 copyleft choice

This is a **draft**, probably will be controversial, definitely needs
wordsmithing.

Fixes #380 "No clear message on why to choose an open source license"
-- added line under heading

Fixes #335 "Feedback from John Sullivan talk on license choosers"
-- remaining items were (roughly) to not surface patents at this
level, and to surface choice between allowing proprirary/closed
source or not

Fixes #239 "Consider discussing ecosystems with an already predominant
license" (well, it doesn't *discuss* but there's a page for that,
unlinked til now) and makes the default recommendation of just about
everyone -- use exisitng project/community's license if applicable
-- prominent on the site

Closes #48 "Proposed modified workflow: make permissive/copyleft
and patents orthogonal" though probably not in way submitter would
favor. I could be convinced that Apache-2.0 should be featured
rather than MIT because of the former's express patent grant, but
as it stands I'm not sure the complexity of Apache-2.0 (and for a
weak grant, relative to GPLv3) is worth it relative to MIT. There's
some value in the first license a user looks at being really easy
to understand. The continued popularity of MIT and simialar ISC and
BSD-2/3 seems to indicate people want that simplicity. And where
are the holdups based on patents supposedly infringed by open source
projects under licenses without an express patent grant that could
not have happened had those projects been under Apache-2.0? Please
educate me! :)

Any and all feedback most welcome.

_licenses/apache-2.0.txt

@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ title: Apache License 2.0
 spdx-id: Apache-2.0
 redirect_from: /licenses/apache/
 source: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
-featured: true
 
 description: A permissive license whose main conditions require preservation of copyright and license notices. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.
 

index.html

@@ -6,43 +6,45 @@ title: Choose an open source license
 permalink: /
 ---
 
+<p>An open source license protects contributors and users. Businesses and savvy developers won’t touch a project without this protection.</p>
+
 <h2>
   <span>{</span>
   Which of the following best describes your situation?
   <span>}</span>
 </h2>
 <ul class="triptych situations clearfix">
+  <li class="patents">
+    <a href="existing">
+      <span class="triptych-sprite lightbulb"></span>
+      <h3>I’m contributing to or extending an existing project.</h3>
+    </a>
+    <p>
+      Use the <a href="existing">existing project’s license</a>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the existing project doesn’t have a license, ask its maintainers to <a href="no-license#for-users">add a license</a>.
+    </p>
+  </li>
   <li class="whatever">
     <a href="licenses/mit">
       <span class="triptych-sprite three-arrows"></span>
-      <h3>I want it simple and permissive.</h3>
+      <h3>I’m feeling permissive.</h3>
     </a>
     <p>
-      The <a href="licenses/mit">MIT License</a> is a permissive license that is short and to the point. It lets people do anything they want with your code as long as they provide attribution back to you and don’t hold you liable.
+      The <a href="licenses/mit">MIT License</a> is short and to the point. It lets people do almost anything they want with your project, including to make and distribute closed source versions.
     </p>
     <p>
       {% include using-sentence.html license-id="mit" %}
     </p>
   </li>
-  <li class="patents">
-    <a href="licenses/apache-2.0/">
-      <span class="triptych-sprite lightbulb"></span>
-      <h3>I’m concerned about patents.</h3>
-    </a>
-    <p>
-      The <a href="licenses/apache-2.0/">Apache License 2.0</a> is a permissive license similar to the MIT License, but also provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.
-    </p>
-    <p>
-      {% include using-sentence.html license-id="apache-2.0" %}
-    </p>
-  </li>
   <li class="copyleft">
     <a href="licenses/gpl-3.0/">
       <span class="triptych-sprite circular"></span>
-      <h3>I care about sharing improvements.</h3>
+      <h3>I’m feeling reciprocal.</h3>
     </a>
     <p>
-      The <a href="licenses/gpl-3.0/">GNU GPLv3</a> is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms, and also provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.
+      The <a href="licenses/gpl-3.0/">GNU GPLv3</a> also lets people do almost anything they want with your project, <em>except</em> to distribute closed source versions.
     </p>
     <p>
       {% include using-sentence.html license-id="gpl-3.0" %}

licenses.html

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ class: license-types
 title: Licenses
 ---
 
-<p style="margin-bottom:50px">Open source licenses grant permission to everyone to use, modify, and share licensed software for any purpose, subject to conditions preserving the provenance and openness of the software. The following licenses are arranged from one with the strongest of these conditions (GNU AGPLv3) to one with no conditions (Unlicense). Notice that the popular licenses featured on the <a href="/">home page</a> (GNU GPLv3, Apache License 2.0, and MIT License) fall within this spectrum.</p>
+<p style="margin-bottom:50px">Open source licenses grant permission to everyone to use, modify, and share licensed software for any purpose, subject to conditions preserving the provenance and openness of the software. The following licenses are arranged from one with the strongest of these conditions (GNU AGPLv3) to one with no conditions (Unlicense). Notice that the popular licenses featured on the <a href="/">home page</a> (GNU GPLv3 and MIT) fall within this spectrum.</p>
 
 {% include license-overview.html license-id="agpl-3.0" %}
 {% include license-overview.html license-id="gpl-3.0" %}