diff --git a/www/conservancy/templates/frontpage.html b/www/conservancy/templates/frontpage.html
index 530f6207844834a0d58b7b5246e4eef738ca8147..1231065c6dd45ad339f174debf9b2c980c6bf840 100644
--- a/www/conservancy/templates/frontpage.html
+++ b/www/conservancy/templates/frontpage.html
@@ -83,8 +83,20 @@ strategies that defend FOSS (such as copyleft). <a href="/about" class="orange">
 <div class="w-30-ns mh2">
   <div class="ph3 pv2 ba b--gray">
     <h3 class="ttu">Term of the week</h3>
-    <h4 id="foss-commons">FOSS commons</h4>
-    <p>The Digital Library of the Commons defines “commons” as “a general term for shared resources in which each stakeholder has an equal interest”. The FOSS commons refers to a commons for free and open source software (FOSS) (See also <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#software-freedom">software freedom</a>).</p>
+    <h4 id="foss-commons">proprietary relicensing</h4>
+    <p><em>Proprietary relicensing</em> is a toxic business model whereby a company
+    distributes software under a <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#copyleft"><em>copyleft</em> licenses</a>, but refuses to
+    agree to the copyleft license themselves (by collecting rights to issue
+    proprietary,
+    non-<a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#FOSS">FOSS</a> licenses
+    for the software separately).  While the software is technically
+    available as FOSS, users must worry since the rights-holder usually
+    captiously (and often incorrectly) interprets the copyleft license and
+    demands licensing fees for acts that copyleft actually permits.  Users
+    must chose whether to fight the proprietary relicensor in Court, buy a
+    proprietary license, or cease use of the software.  This behavior is
+    widely consider by FOSS activists as an inappropriate use of copyleft
+      licensing.</p>
     <p><a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html" class="orange ttu">Visit our glossary of terms</a></p>
   </div>