diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index d367216370d466f20522d4f01d234b3dc6a1183d..556588add3a66a647b7659ed68a422c1732750e2 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -103,68 +103,65 @@ to have learned the following:
 
 \chapter{What Is Software Freedom?}
 
-Consideration of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as
-\defn{GNU GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader
-world of Free Software. The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
-it was created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set
-forth at the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation
-(FSF)---the organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy
-of software freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular
-versions of GPL (GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their
-terms and conditions is a basic understanding of the principles behind it.
-The GPL family of licenses are unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is
-designed to defend and uphold these principles.
+Study of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as \defn{GNU
+  GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader world
+of software freedom. The GPL was not created from a void, rather, it was
+created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set forth at the
+founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) -- the
+organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software
+freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions of GPL
+(GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of
+the principles behind it.  The GPL family of licenses are unlike almost all
+other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these
+principles.
 
 \section{The Free Software Definition}
 \label{Free Software Definition}
 
-The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's Web site at
-\verb0http://www.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 terms of the GPL\@.
+The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on 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\@.
 
-A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
-that program, the following freedoms:
+A particular program grants software freedom to a particular user if that
+user is granted the following freedoms:
 
 \begin{itemize}
 
-\item The freedom to run the program for any purpose
 
-\item The freedom to change and modify the program
+\teim The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
 
-\item The freedom to copy and share the program
+\item The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it
 
-\item The freedom to share improved versions of the program
+\item The freedom to redistribute copies.
+
+\item The freedom to distribute copies of  modified versions to others.
 
 \end{itemize}
 
-The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here. It is not
-uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these
-freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only
-some of these freedoms. Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in
-detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the
-GPL\@.
-
-Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open
-Source.''  Besides having a different political focus than those who
-call it Free Software,\footnote{The political differences between the
-  Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented
-  on FSF's Web site at {\tt
-    http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}
-those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side
-issue.  User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite
-to make use of the freedom to modify. However, the important issue is
-what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code.
-Microsoft's ``Shared Source'' program, for example, gives various
-types of access to source code, but almost none of the freedoms
-described in this section.
-
-One key issue central to these freedoms is that there are no
-restrictions on how these freedoms can be 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.
+The focus on ``a particular user'' is particularly pertinent here.  It is not
+uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these freedoms
+to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only some of these
+freedoms.  Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in detail about how
+this can unfortunately happen even if a program is released under the GPL\@.
+
+Many people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open Source.''
+Besides having a different political focus than those who call it Free
+Software,\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software
+  Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at
+  {\tt 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 is what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code.
+
+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 their ``Open Source Definition''.
 
 In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
 restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.''  Typically, the
