diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index d1229b0e8ef3db7c284ef605fbd5a202af36424b..2a8c5d224524044ddee32337aa2b14814d25aebf 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -375,11 +375,10 @@ effectively no longer restricted by copyright law.   Software not restricted by
 
 \subsection{Public Domain Software}
 
-Theoretically, an author can create public domain software by disclaiming all
-copyright interest on the work. In the USA and other countries that have
-signed the Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted
-automatically by the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible
-medium.''  In the software world, this usually means typing the source code
+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 control of copyright
@@ -389,20 +388,22 @@ 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 in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
-in any way. It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
+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
-expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
+express permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
 
-By contrast, the copyright holders instead renounced copyright controls on
+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 holder exclusive controls over the
-work, and they chose to waive those controls.  Software in the public domain
-is absent copyright and absent a license. The software freedoms discussed in
+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.  First, disclaimer of copyright is actually difficult in practice.
+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
@@ -414,10 +415,17 @@ 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.
 
-The best example of software known to be in the public domain is software
-that is published exclusively produced by the USA government.  Under
+Nevertheless, under US 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 US 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.
+works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable in the US.
 
 \subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
 
