diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 3ba9609b72472c0ee77f9e0e5f5b251136f4b113..523a0998e8d7b6f114d1479b45137d902024c21a 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -1341,10 +1341,10 @@ identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while
 
 The First Circuit has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable 
 when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in 
-\S 102(b).  Their approach results in a much narrower definition
+\S~102(b).  Their approach results in a much narrower definition
 of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically, 
 the
-First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S 102(b) of
+First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S~102(b) of
 the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate
 computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807
 (1st Cir. 1995).  In Lotus, the court held that a menu command
@@ -1355,7 +1355,7 @@ controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit’s test, literal copying
 of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot
 form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of
 another.  As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test
-do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S 102(b) to filter out
+do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S~102(b) to filter out
 unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc., 
 683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).
 
@@ -1413,7 +1413,7 @@ both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the
 First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for 
 compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
 Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),
-and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S 102(b). 
+and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b). 
 
 Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly
 detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
@@ -1926,7 +1926,7 @@ also  not trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other
 entirely separate legal systems.  In short, while GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are the parts
 of the license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers,
 GPLv2~\S\S4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear
-so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.
+so that \S\S~0--3 can do their jobs.
 
 \section{GPLv2~\S4: Termination on Violation}
 \label{GPLv2s4}
@@ -3030,7 +3030,7 @@ covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain
 kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section
 2.
 
-\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S 7}
+\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S~7}
 
 % FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
 
@@ -3505,7 +3505,7 @@ that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.
 
 LGPLv2.1~\S6 lists five choices with regard to supplying library source
 and granting the freedom to modify that library source to users. We
-will first consider the option given by \S 6(b), which describes the
+will first consider the option given by \S~6(b), which describes the
 most common way currently used for LGPLv2.1 compliance on a ``work that
 uses the library.''