diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 9eb86514a1a407df57590ab890e8479b05d9b25e..1c6a3c64011d78fd16b449789417cf19b40fe2bc 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -191,15 +191,15 @@ Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how
 these freedoms are exercised.  Specifically, users and programmers can
 exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially.  Licenses that grant
 these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial
-activities are considered non-free.  Even the Open Source Initiative
-(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules
-such licenses not in fitting with its ``Open Source Definition''.
+activities are considered non-free.  The Open Source Initiative
+(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also regards
+such licenses as inconsistent with its ``Open Source Definition''.
 
 In general, software for which any of these freedoms are
-restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.''  Typically, the
-term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
-``non-Free Software.''  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
-Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom
+restricted in any way is called ``nonfree'' (or as I prefer to write it, ``non-Free'') software.  Some use the
+term ``proprietary software'' more or less interchangeably with
+``non-Free software.''  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
+software'' to refer to software available noncommercially that restricts freedom
 (such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
 commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
 Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
