diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 77feedeca729b110a9692d377250864e7b81f216..da10e86f4ede4bce87b0aa2623c5ce714073ad73 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ principles.
 \section{The Free Software Definition}
 \label{Free Software Definition}
 
-The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
+The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on the FSF's website at
 \verb0http://fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0. This section presents
 an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most pertinent
 to the GPL\@.
@@ -111,11 +111,11 @@ user has the following freedoms:
 
 \item The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
 
-\item The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it
+\item The freedom to study how the program works, and to modify it.
 
 \item The freedom to redistribute copies.
 
-\item The freedom to distribute copies of  modified versions to others.
+\item The freedom to distribute copies of modified versions to others.
 
 \end{itemize}
 
@@ -132,8 +132,8 @@ Software'',\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software
   Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at
   \url{http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.},
  those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
-issue.  Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a
-prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify.  However, the important
+issue.  Though user access to the source code of a program is a
+prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify, the important
 issue is what freedoms are granted in the license that applies to that source code.
 
 Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how
@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ use for a particular program, one that the programmer never could have
 predicted.  Such a use must not be restricted.
 
 It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
-software; but such is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements
+software, but this is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements
 (EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of
 uses.  Such restrictions of any kind are an unacceptable restriction on
 software freedom.
@@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ 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
-commonly the case, though today there are additional ways of
+freely among members of the development community.\footnote{This is often
+ still the case, though today there are additional ways of
 sharing Free Software.}  Such noncommercial
 sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.
 
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ proprietary software distributors further impede modification in a practical
 sense by distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the
 software secret.
 
-Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the
+Copyright is not a natural state; it is a legal construction. In the USA, the
 Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as
 federal legislation.  Software, since it is an ``original work of authorship
 fixed in any tangible medium of expression ...  from which they can be
@@ -332,97 +332,83 @@ aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in
 \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus
 covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.
 
-However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free
-Software. In an imaginary world with no copyright, the rules would be
-different. In this world, when you received a copy of a program's source
-code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it
-with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified
-versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the
-  complexities with this argument are discussed in
-  Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}
-
-Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is automatically
-covered by that legal system.  However, it is possible to move software out
-of the domain of the copyright system.  A copyright holder can often
-\defn{disclaim} their copyright. (For example, under USA copyright law
-it is possible for a copyright holder to engage in conduct resulting
-in abandonment of copyright.)  If copyright is disclaimed, the software is
-effectively no longer restricted by copyright law.   Software not restricted by copyright is in the
-``public domain.''
-
-\subsection{Public Domain Software}
-
-In the USA and other countries that
-are parties to the Berne Convention on Copyright, software is copyrighted
-automatically by the author when she fixes the software in a tangible
-medium.  In the software world, this usually means typing the source code
-of the software into a file.
-
-Imagine if authors could truly disclaim those default controls of copyright
-law.  If so, the software is in the public domain --- no longer covered by
-copyright.  Since copyright law is the construction allowing for most
-restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, modification, and
-redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system usually
-yields software freedom for its users.
-
-Carefully note that software truly in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
-in any way.  It is confusing to say software is ``licensed for the
-public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
-express permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
-
-Copyright holders who state that they are releasing their code into
-the public domain are effectively renouncing copyright controls on
-the work.  The law gave the copyright holders exclusive controls over the
-work, and they chose to waive those controls.  Software that is, in
-this sense, in the public domain
-is conceptualized by the developer as having no copyright and thus no license. The software freedoms discussed in
-Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
-legal system in play to take them away.
-
-Admittedly, a discussion of public domain software is an oversimplified
-example.  
-Because copyright controls are usually automatically granted and because, in
-some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (see
-Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} for further discussion), many copyright
-holders sometimes incorrectly believe a work has been placed in the public
-domain.  Second, due to aggressive lobbying by the entertainment industry,
-the ``exclusive Right'' of copyright, that was supposed to only exist for
-``Limited Times'' according to the USA Constitution, appears to be infinite:
-simply purchased on the installment plan rather than in whole.  Thus, we must
-assume no works of software will fall into the public domain merely due to
-the passage of time.
-
-Nevertheless, under USA law it is likely that the typical
-disclaimers of copyright or public domain dedications we see in the
-Free Software world would be interpreted by courts as copyright
-abandonment, leading to a situation in which the user effectively receives a
-maximum grant of copyright freedoms, similar to a maximally-permissive
-Free Software license.
-
-The best example of software known to truly be in the public domain is software
-that is published by the USA government.  Under
-\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105}{17 USC 101 \S~105}, all
-works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable in the USA.
+% Potential re-write: 
+% +-----------------+ 
+Software, in a state of nature, is Free Software.
+In an imaginary world without copyright, when you receive a copy of a program's source 
+code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it 
+with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified 
+versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the 
+complexities with this argument are discussed in Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}
+
+% Come back to this. The idea that software has a copyright-less natural 
+% state contradicts copyright law as it exists, which assumes copyright 
+% (as stated in the prev. paragraph.) Not even sure if my rewrite is correct.
+
+Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is automatically covered by 
+such a legal system.  However, it is possible to move software out of the domain of the 
+copyright system.  A copyright holder can often \defn{disclaim} their copyright. (For 
+example, under United States copyright law, it is possible for a copyright holder to 
+engage in conduct resulting in abandonment of copyright.) If copyright is disclaimed, 
+the software is effectively no longer restricted by copyright law.  Software not 
+restricted by copyright is in the ``public domain.''
+
+\subsection{Public Domain Software} In the USA and other countries that are parties to 
+the Berne Convention on Copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by the author 
+when she fixes the software in a tangible medium.  In the software world, this usually 
+means typing the source code of the software into a file. Imagine if authors could 
+truly disclaim those default controls of copyright law.  If so, the software is in the 
+public domain --- no longer covered by copyright.  Since copyright law is the 
+construction allowing for most restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, 
+modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system 
+usually yields software freedom for its users. Carefully note that software truly in 
+the public domain is \emph{not} licensed in any way.  It is confusing to say software 
+is ``licensed for the public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder 
+gave express permission to take actions governed by copyright law. Copyright holders 
+who state that they are releasing their code into the public domain are effectively 
+renouncing copyright controls on the work.  The law gave the copyright holders 
+exclusive controls over the work, and they chose to waive those controls.  Software 
+that is, in this sense, in the public domain is conceptualized by the developer as 
+having no copyright and thus no license. The software freedoms discussed in 
+Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no legal system 
+in play to take them away. Admittedly, a discussion of public domain software is an 
+oversimplified example.  Because copyright controls are usually automatically granted 
+and because, in some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (see 
+Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} for further discussion), many copyright holders 
+sometimes incorrectly believe a work has been placed in the public domain.  Second, due 
+to aggressive lobbying by the entertainment industry, the ``exclusive Right'' of 
+copyright, which was supposed to only exist for ``Limited Times'' according to the 
+United States Constitution, appears to be infinite: simply `purchased' on the 
+installment plan rather than in whole.  Thus, we must assume no works of software will 
+fall into the public domain merely due to the passage of time. Nevertheless, under USA 
+law it is likely that the typical disclaimers of copyright or public domain dedications 
+we see in the Free Software world would be interpreted by courts as copyright 
+abandonment, leading to a situation in which the user effectively receives a maximum 
+grant of copyright freedoms, similar to a maximally-permissive Free Software license.
+
+The best example of software known to truly be in the public domain is software that is 
+published by the United States government.  Under 
+\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105}{17 USC 101 \S~105}, all works 
+published by the United States Government are not copyrightable in the USA.
 
 \subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
 
-If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
-stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the
-easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software. Indeed,
-some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their
-software Free. However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}
-copyrighted. In most cases (particularly in those of FSF and the GNU
-Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
+If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it stands to 
+reason that putting software into the public domain is the easiest and most 
+straightforward way to produce Free Software. Indeed, some major Free Software projects 
+have chosen this method for making their software Free. However, most of the Free 
+Software in existence \emph{is} copyrighted. In most cases (particularly in those of 
+FSF and the GNU Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
 
 Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users
 who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed
 copyright. However, since the work is not copyrighted, any nontrivial
 modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.
 
-Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and
-perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the
+Free Software released into the public domain is only guaranteed to be initially Free, and
+perhaps some who modify the software might choose to place their work into the
 public domain as well. However, over time, some entities will choose to
-proprietarize their modified versions. The public domain body of software
+proprietarize their modified versions. The public domain body of software then
 feeds the proprietary software. The public commons disappears, because
 fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the
 commons. They know that any of their competitors can proprietarize their
@@ -433,15 +419,16 @@ A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem. FSF was in fact
 originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,
 and that work of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
 its work today. Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
-extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
-and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms. Many, including the
+extend'' cycle found in software released to the public domain, 
+the FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
+and to then license it under ``copyleft'' terms. Many, including the
 developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
 
 \label{copyleft-definition}
 
 Copyleft is a strategy of utilizing copyright law to pursue the policy goal
 of fostering and encouraging the equal and inalienable right to copy, share,
-modify and improve creative works of authorship.  Copyleft (as a general
+modify, and improve creative works of authorship.  Copyleft (as a general
 term) describes any method that utilizes the copyright system to achieve the
 aforementioned goal.  Copyleft as a concept is usually implemented in the
 details of a specific copyright license, such as the
@@ -458,7 +445,7 @@ or publishers, to strengthen instead the rights of users.  Thus, Copyleft is
 a legal strategy and mechanism to defend, uphold and propagate software
 freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
 software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but use
-the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of the
+the copyright law's controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of the
 software have equal rights and freedom. In essence, copyleft grants freedom,
 but forbids others to forbid that freedom to anyone else along the
 distribution and modification chains.
@@ -482,14 +469,14 @@ as this tutorial.
 
 Copyleft advocates often distinguish between the concept of a ``strong
 copyleft'' or a ``weak copyleft''.  However, ``strong vs. weak'' copyleft is
-not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum.  The strongest copylefts strive to the
-exclusive rights that copyright  grants to authors as extensively as possible
+not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum.  The strongest copylefts use the
+exclusive rights that copyright  grants authors as extensively as possible
 to maximize software freedom.  As a copyleft gets ``weaker'', the copyleft
 license typically makes ``trade offs'' that might impede software freedom,
-but reach other tactic goals for the community of users and developers of the
+but reach other tactical goals for the community of users and developers of the
 work.
 
-In other words, strong copyleft licenses place the more requirements on how
+In other words, strong copyleft licenses place more requirements on how
 ``the work'' is licensed.  The unit of copyright law is ``the work''.  In
 that sense, the ``work'' referenced by the licenses is anything that can be
 copyrighted or will be subject to the terms of copyright law.  Strong
@@ -504,7 +491,7 @@ code\footnote{Copyleft communities' use of the term ``strong copyleft'' is
   copyleft community continues to debate where the a license cross the line
   from ``strong copyleft'' to ``license that fails to respect software
   freedom'', although ultimately these debates are actually regarding whether
-  the license fits \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software
+  the license fits the \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software
     definition} at all.}.  Thus, copyleft licenses, particularly strong ones,
 seek to ensure the same license covers every version of ``work based on the
 work'', as recognized by local copyright law, and thereby achieve the
@@ -513,10 +500,10 @@ developers, authors, and readers who encounter the copylefted work.
 
 \subsection{Software and Non-Copyright Legal Regimes}
 \label{software-and-non-copyright}
-
+ 
 The use, modification and distribution of software, like many endeavors,
 simultaneously interacts with multiple different legal regimes.  As was noted
-early via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to
+earlier via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to
 restrict users' rights to copy, share, modify and/or redistribute software.
 However, proprietary software licenses typically use every mechanism
 available to subjugate users.  For example:
@@ -543,7 +530,7 @@ available to subjugate users.  For example:
   software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read
   only by computers).  Furthermore,
   \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201}{17 USC~\S1201} often
-  prohibits users legally from circumventing some of these DRM systems.
+  legally prohibits users from circumventing some of these DRM systems.
 
 \item Most EULAs also include a contractual agreement that bind users further
   by forcing them to agree to a contractual, prohibitive software license
@@ -552,9 +539,9 @@ available to subjugate users.  For example:
 \end{itemize}
 
 Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking
-legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respect the software
+legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respects the software
 freedom of all users must not only grant appropriate copyright permissions,
-but also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological
+but must also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological
 means like those listed above.
 
 \subsection{Non-USA Copyright Regimes}
@@ -573,7 +560,7 @@ waived nor disclaimed.  Specifically, many copyright regimes outside the USA
 recognize a concept of moral rights of authors.  Typically, moral rights are
 fully compatible with respecting software freedom, as they are usually
 centered around controls that software freedom licenses generally respect,
-such as the right of an authors to require proper attribution for their work.
+such as the right of an author to require proper attribution for their work.
 
 \section{A Community of Equality}
 
@@ -581,9 +568,9 @@ The previous section described the principles of software freedom, a brief
 introduction to mechanisms that typically block these freedoms, and the
 simplest ways that copyright holders might grant those freedoms to their
 users for their copyrighted works of software.  The previous section also
-introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism to use
+introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism which uses
 copyright to not only grant software freedom to users, but also to uphold
-those rights against those who might seek to curtail them.
+those rights against the actions of those who might seek to curtail them.
 
 Copyleft, as defined in \S~\ref{copyleft-definition}, is a general term for this
 mechanism.  The remainder of this text will discuss details of various
@@ -591,7 +578,7 @@ real-world implementations of copyleft -- most notably, the GPL\@.
 
 This discussion begins first with some general explanation of what the GPL is
 able to do in software development communities.  After that brief discussion
-in this section, deeper discussion of how GPL accomplishes this in practice
+in this section, deeper discussion of how the GPL accomplishes this in practice
 follows in the next chapter.
 
 Simply put, though, the GPL ultimately creates a community of equality for
@@ -632,7 +619,7 @@ 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
   \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
@@ -643,10 +630,10 @@ students who originally developed the software.
 
 The noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
 fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work.  They knew
-that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
+that because of the nature of the GPL, improvements that were
 distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
 the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
-Samba, so the noncommercial users, and even other commercial users are
+Samba, so noncommercial users, and even other commercial users, are
 safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by the GPL will remain
 protected.
 
