diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 67988fba6457e9ec660a4070e79708fe72980ee1..3323a40d9b0d39bed26378e0bce845f3f1a38783 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -3774,10 +3774,10 @@ on modern GNU/Linux systems, which all use the GNU C Library).
 
 Unlike existing GNU application software, however, the licensing
 implications of releasing the GNU C Library (``glibc'') under the GPL were
-somewhat different. Applications released under GPL would never
+somewhat different. Applications released under the GPL would never
 themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were
-released under GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
-the GNU/Linux platform be released under GPL\@.
+released under the GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
+the GNU/Linux platform be released under the GPL\@.
 
 Since all applications on a Unix-like system depend on the C library, it
 means that they must link with that library to function on the system. In
@@ -3799,7 +3799,7 @@ to anyone who wished to write proprietary software for GNU/Linux systems.
 The de-facto standard for the C library on GNU/Linux would likely be not
 glibc, but the most popular proprietary one.
 
-Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under GPL --- to ensure no
+Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under the GPL --- to ensure no
 proprietary applications on GNU/Linux --- would be unattainable in this
 scenario. Furthermore, users of those proprietary applications would also
 be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.
@@ -3807,7 +3807,7 @@ be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.
 The Lesser GPL was initially conceived to handle this scenario. It was
 clear that the existence of proprietary applications for GNU/Linux was
 inevitable. Since there were so many C libraries already in existence, a
-new one under GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library
+new one under the GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library
 were released under a license that permitted proprietary applications
 to link with it, but made sure that the library itself remained Free,
 an ancillary goal could be met. Users of proprietary applications, while
@@ -3862,7 +3862,7 @@ used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in
 countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these
 licenses.
 
-LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9
+LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up the FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9
 does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPLv2.1~\S14 reminds licensees that copyright
 holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S10
 reminds licensees of the same thing.
@@ -3878,7 +3878,7 @@ same legal mechanisms and are enforced precisely the same way.
 
 We strike a difference only in the early portions of the license.
 Namely, in the LGPL we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to
-create derivative works, so the redistributors can make
+create derivative works, so the re-distributors can make
 some proprietary derivatives. Since we simply do not allow the
 license to stretch as far as copyright law does regarding what
 derivative works must be relicensed under the same terms, we must go