diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 0d4406564b6c40e8442bd5dfe54e4112ab6c1d2a..aaf7c831029ed4a70fdc7e06c47d7a195a6e9518 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -292,9 +292,9 @@ pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
 it was typical for a
 Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
 would be shared
-freely among members of the development community\footnote{This is still
+freely among members of the development community.\footnote{This is still
 commonly the case, though today there are additional ways of
-sharing Free Software.}.   Such noncommercial
+sharing Free Software.}  Such noncommercial
 sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.
 
 Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
@@ -578,8 +578,8 @@ available to subjugate users.  For example:
 
 \item Digital Restrictions Management (usually called \defn{DRM}) is often
   used to impose technological restrictions on users' ability to exercise
-  software freedom that they might otherwise be granted\footnote{See
-    \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} for more information on how GPL deals with this issue.}.
+  software freedom that they might otherwise be granted.\footnote{See
+    \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} for more information on how GPL deals with this issue.}
   The simplest (and perhaps oldest) form of DRM, of course, is separating
   software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read
   only by computers).  Furthermore,
@@ -671,9 +671,9 @@ to fuel a commercial system around that software.
 For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
 systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
 Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
-it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments\footnote{See
+it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments.\footnote{See
   \href{http://turtle.ee.ncku.edu.tw/docs/samba/history}{Andrew Tridgell's
-    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}}.  However, very
+    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}}  However, very
 soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
 as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
 Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of
@@ -821,13 +821,13 @@ implementation that assured software freedom for all.  However, RMS saw that
 using a license that gave but did not assure software freedom would be
 counter to the goals of the GNU project.  RMS invented ``copyleft'' as an
 answer to that problem, and began using various copyleft licenses for the
-early GNU project programs\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in
+early GNU project programs.\footnote{RMS writes more fully about this topic in
   his essay entitled simply
   \href{http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html}{\textit{The GNU Project}}.
     For those who want to hear the story in his own voice,
     \href{http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/}{speech recordings} of his talk,
     \textit{The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System}
-    are also widely available}.
+    are also widely available}
 
 \section{Proto-GPLs And Their Impact}
 
@@ -866,11 +866,11 @@ issues discussed earlier in \S~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.
 In January 1989, the FSF announced that the GPL had been converted into a
 ``subroutine'' that could be reused not just for all FSF-copyrighted
 programs, but also by anyone else.  As the FSF claimed in its announcement of
-the GPLv1\footnote{The announcement of GPLv1 was published in the
+the GPLv1:\footnote{The announcement of GPLv1 was published in the
   \href{http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html\#SEC8}{GNU's Bulletin, vol 1,
     number 6 dated January 1989}.  (Thanks very much to Andy Tai for his
   \href{http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/}{consolidation of research on
-    the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}:
+    the history of the pre-v1 GPL's}.)}
 \begin{quotation}
 To make it easier to copyleft programs, we have been improving on the
 legalbol architecture of the General Public License to produce a new version
@@ -884,18 +884,18 @@ It took almost five years from the first copyleft licenses to get to a
 generalized, reusable GPLv1.  In the context and mindset of the 1980s, this
 is not surprising.  The idea of reusable licensing infrastructure was not
 only uncommon, it was virtually nonexistent!  Even the early BSD licenses
-were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use\footnote{It
+were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use.\footnote{It
   remains an interesting accident of history that the early BSD problematic
   ``advertising clause'' (discussion of which is somewhat beyond the scope of
   this tutorial) lives on into current day, simply because while the
   University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove
   the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD
-  license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}.  The
+  license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}  The
 GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
-today, was indeed a novel invention for its day\footnote{We're all just
+today, was indeed a novel invention for its day.\footnote{We're all just
   grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's
   patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have
-  not expired until 2006!}.
+  not expired until 2006!}
 
 \section{The GNU General Public License, Version 2}
 
@@ -936,9 +936,9 @@ RMS began drafting GPLv2.2 in mid-2002, and FSF ran a few discussion groups
 during that era about new text of that license.  However, rampant violations
 of the GPL required more immediate attention of FSF's licensing staff, and as
 such, much of the early 2000's was spent doing GPL enforcement
-work\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a
+work.\footnote{More on GPL enforcement is discussed in \tutorialpartsplit{a
     companion tutorial, \textit{A Practical Guide to GPL
-      Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.}.  In
+      Compliance}}{Part~\ref{gpl-compliance-guide} of this tutorial}.}  In
 2006, FSF began in earnest drafting work for GPLv3.
 
 The GPLv3 process began in earnest in January 2006.  It became clear that
@@ -1791,11 +1791,11 @@ requirements of GPLv2~\S2 (and GPLv2~\S3, which will be discussed next) are
 centered around two different copyright controls: both modification
 \emph{and} distribution.  As such, GPLv2~\S2's requirements need only be met
 when a modified version is distributed; one need not follow them for modified
-versions that are not distributed\footnote{As a matter of best practice, it's
+versions that are not distributed.\footnote{As a matter of best practice, it's
   useful to assume that all software may eventually be distributed later,
   even if there no plans for distribution at this time.  Too often, GPL
   violations occur because of a late distribution decision of software that
-  was otherwise never intended for distribution.}.
+  was otherwise never intended for distribution.}
 
 However, the careful reader of GPLv2 will notice that, unlike GPLv3, no other
 clauses of the license actually give explicit permission to make private
@@ -2404,14 +2404,14 @@ terms surrounding it (see \textit{Stevenson v.~TRW, Inc.}, 987 F.2d 288, 296
 (5th Cir.~1993)).  While GPLv3's drafters doubted that such authority would
 apply to copyright licenses like the GPL, the FSF has nevertheless left
 warranty and related disclaimers in \textsc{all caps} throughout all versions
-of GPL\@\footnote{One of the authors of this tutorial, Bradley M.~Kuhn, has
+of GPL\@.\footnote{One of the authors of this tutorial, Bradley M.~Kuhn, has
   often suggested the aesthetically preferable compromise of a
   \textsc{specifically designed ``small caps'' font, such as this one, as an
     alternative to} WRITING IN ALL CAPS IN THE DEFAULT FONT (LIKE THIS),
   since the latter adds more ugliness than conspicuousness.  Kuhn once
   engaged in reversion war with a lawyer who disagreed, but that lawyer never
   answered Kuhn's requests for case law that argues THIS IS INHERENTLY MORE
-  CONSPICUOUS \textsc{Than this is}.}.
+  CONSPICUOUS \textsc{Than this is}.}
 
 Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because
 its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad.  However, GPLv2~\S11
@@ -2542,14 +2542,14 @@ GPLv2 included a defined term, ``work based on the Program'', but also used
 the term ``modify'' and ``based on'' throughout the license.  GPLv2's ``work
 based on the Program'' definition made use of a legal term of art,
 ``derivative work'', which is peculiar to USA copyright
-law\footnote{(Ironically, most criticism of USA-specific legal
+law.\footnote{(Ironically, most criticism of USA-specific legal
 terminology in GPLv2's ``work based on the Program'' definition historically
 came not primarily from readers outside the USA, but from those within
 it.  The FSF noted in that it did not generally agree with these
   views, and expressed puzzlement by the energy with which they were
   expressed, given the existence of many other, more difficult legal issues
   implicated by the GPL.  Nevertheless, the FSF argued that it made sense to
-  eliminate usage of local copyright terminology to good effect.}.  GPLv2
+  eliminate usage of local copyright terminology to good effect.}  GPLv2
 always sought to cover all rights governed by relevant copyright law, in the
 USA and elsewhere.
 Even though differently-labeled concepts corresponding to the
@@ -2688,7 +2688,7 @@ obfuscated programming.
 \subsection{CCS Definition}
 \label{CCS Definition}
 
-The definition of CCS\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who
+The definition of CCS,\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who
   work regularly with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 is ``Complete Corresponding
   Source'', abbreviated to ``CCS''.  Admittedly, the word ``complete'' no
   longer appears in GPLv3 (which uses the word ``all'' instead).  However,
@@ -2697,7 +2697,7 @@ The definition of CCS\footnote{Note that the preferred term for those who
   Corresponding Source''.  Meanwhile, use of the acronym ``CCS'' (sometimes,
   ``C\&CS'') was so widespread among GPL enforcers that its use continues
   even though GPLv3-focused experts tend to say just the defined term of
-  ``Corresponding Source''.}, or, as GPLv3 officially calls it,
+  ``Corresponding Source''.} or, as GPLv3 officially calls it,
 ``Corresponding Source'' in GPLv3~\S1\P4 is possibly the most complex
 definition in the license.
 
@@ -3274,12 +3274,12 @@ interpreting Magnuson-Moss are in accord; see, e.g., \textit{Stroebner
 Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028,
 1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).}  Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use
 is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer
-product under Magnuson-Moss\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
+product under Magnuson-Moss.\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
 Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the
 court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where
 such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users,
 including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
-promoted for use in the home.}.
+promoted for use in the home.}
 
 However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components
 of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss is under-inclusive.
@@ -3778,9 +3778,9 @@ the material added or altered by the contributor, but also the pre-existing
 material the contributor copied from the upstream version and retained in the
 modified version.  (GPLv3's usage of ``contributor'' and ``contribution'' should
 not be confused with the various other ways in which those terms are used in
-certain other free software licenses\footnote{Cf., e.g., Apache License,
+certain other free software licenses.\footnote{Cf., e.g., Apache License,
   version 2.0, section 1; Eclipse Public License, version 1.0, section 1;
-  Mozilla Public License, version 1.1, section 1.1.}.)
+  Mozilla Public License, version 1.1, section 1.1.})
 
 Some details of the ``essential patent claims'' definition deserve special
 mention.  ``Essential patent claims'', for a given party, are a subset of the
@@ -3903,10 +3903,10 @@ availability option, so it remains.
 Meanwhile, two specific alternatives to the source code availability option
 are also available. The distributor may comply by disclaiming the patent
 license it has been granted for the conveyed work, or by arranging to extend
-the patent license to downstream recipients\footnote{The latter option, if
+the patent license to downstream recipients.\footnote{The latter option, if
   chosen, must be done ``in a manner consistent with the requirements of this
   License''; for example, it is unavailable if extension of the patent
-  license would result in a violation of GPLv3~\S 12.}.  The GPL is intended
+  license would result in a violation of GPLv3~\S 12.}  The GPL is intended
 to permit private distribution as well as public distribution, and the
 addition of these options ensures that this remains the case, even though it
 remains likely that distributors in this situation will usually choose the
@@ -4884,11 +4884,11 @@ versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
 A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
 proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for
 software in which a particular entity holds exclusive rights to
-relicense\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights
+relicense.\footnote{Entities typically hold exclusive relicensing rights
   either by writing all the software under their own copyrights, collecting
   copyright assignments from all contributors, or by otherwise demanding
   unconditional relicensing permissions from all contributors via some legal
-  agreement}. As discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is
+  agreement} As discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is
 permitted under copyright law to license a software system under her
 copyright as many different ways as she likes to as many different parties as
 she wishes.
