diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index ec0d8ffd75691073ddefb4b9ece7c4ae5d1da583..438ae3140862641c6ad05671c2534ff692f15bf2 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -1662,12 +1662,6 @@ of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
 would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  Thus, to
 say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
 
-The GPL  recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
-``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be
-combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
-separately distributed.  Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
-scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
-
 Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
 ``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could
 be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
@@ -1675,6 +1669,15 @@ separately distributed.  Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
 the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
 scope of copyright.
 
+% Comment: The above is only true to the extent that the independent work is
+% not also combined as part of a whole based on the GPL'd program, because in
+% such case, the licensor needs to "extend" the GPL terms to the whole,
+% including the independent work "regardless of who wrote it".
+% 
+% I think the paragraph could thus benefit in clarity by not mentioning the
+% "limits the scope of copyleft to the scope of copyright" here (but that may
+% have to be with the fact I disagree with this statement in general 😉 
+
 GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
 from ``static'' linking of program code.  It is occasionally suggested that a
 subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking