@@ -1149,7 +1149,7 @@ As described in the \hyperref[copyleft-definition]{earlier general discussion
software freedom via the copyright system. This principle often causes
theoretical or speculative dispute among lawyers, because ``the work'' ---
the primary unit of consideration under most copyright rules -- is not a unit
of computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an
of computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'', an
``object'', a ``function'', a ``library'' or any other unit of software is
part of one ``work'' when combined with other GPL'd code, we must ask a
question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical
@@ -1158,9 +1158,9 @@ terms.
Therefore, this chapter digresses from discussion of GPL's exact text to
consider the matter of combined and/or derivative works --- a concept that we must
understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@. At least under USA
copyright law, The GPL, and Free
copyright law, the GPL, and Free
Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of
``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not
``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent'', (i.e., not
``derivative'') of Free Software need not abide by the terms of the
applicable Free Software license. As much is required by \S~106 of the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S~106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software