diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 8876c1cb5e2079b5ffcf937680ca4de17da31f89..1ac50ab07f64cda0ec67f646ff50d0c13478dbff 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -64,10 +64,11 @@ any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
 
 \begin{abstract}
 
+
 This tutorial gives a section-by-section explanation of the most popular
 Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL),
-and teaches software developers, managers and businesspeople how to use
-the GPL and GPL'ed software successfully in new Free Software business and
+and teaches software developers, managers and business people how to use
+the GPL and GPL'ed software successfully in a new Free Software business and
 in existing, successful enterprises.
 
 Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development
@@ -198,7 +199,7 @@ For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must be
 completely unrestricted.  This means that any use for that software that
 the user can come up with must be permitted.  Perhaps, for example, the
 user has discovered an innovative new use for a particular program, one
-that the programmer never could have predicted.  Such a use much not be
+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
@@ -225,7 +226,7 @@ users groups).  This means they must have the freedom to recruit
 programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.
 
 The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential.  Each user, or
-group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish on a
+group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish in a
 competitive free market to modify and change the software.  This means
 that companies have a right to hire anyone they wish to modify their Free
 Software.  Additionally, such companies may contract with other companies
@@ -314,7 +315,7 @@ redistributing that software\footnote{Copyright law in general also
   governs ``public performance'' of copyrighted works.  There is no
   generally agreed definition for public performance of software and
   version 2 of the GPL does not govern public performance.}.  By law, the
-copyright holder (aka the author) of the work controls how others my copy,
+copyright holder (aka the author) of the work controls how others may copy,
 modify and/or distribute the work.  For proprietary software, these
 controls are used to prohibit these activities.  In addition, proprietary
 software distributors further impede modification in a practical sense by
@@ -365,6 +366,7 @@ expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
 
 By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
 controls on the work.  The law gave her controls over the work, and she
+%should the ``she'' be a ``(s)he'' ?
 has chosen to waive those controls.  Software in the public domain is
 absent copyright and absent a license.  The software freedoms discussed in
 Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
@@ -401,7 +403,7 @@ and that work of 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, and many, including the
-developers of the kernel named Linux has chosen to follow this paradigm.
+developers of the kernel named Linux have chosen to follow this paradigm.
 
 Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
 freedom.  The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
@@ -482,7 +484,7 @@ Samba altruistically, but also get work doing it.  Priorities change when a
 client is in the mix, but all the code is contributed back to the
 canonical version.  Meanwhile, many other individuals have gotten involved
 non-commercially as developers, because they want to ``cut their teeth on
-Free Software'' or because the problem interest them.  When they get good
+Free Software'' or because the problems interest them.  When they get good
 at it, perhaps they will move on to another project or perhaps they will
 become commercial developers of the software themselves.
 
@@ -565,7 +567,7 @@ remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This quotation is Copyright
 
 In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
 infrastructure.  Few defend themselves in court or write their own briefs
-(even though they legally permitted to do so) because everyone would
+(even though they are legally permitted to do so) because everyone would
 prefer to have an expert do that job.
 
 The Free Software economy is a market that is ripe for experts.  It
@@ -628,7 +630,7 @@ Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
 
 The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
 throughout.  The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
-the Program''.  The reason this definition is particular interesting is
+the Program''.  The reason this definition is particularly interesting is
 not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but the
 because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
 
@@ -682,13 +684,13 @@ copies, one may make money.  Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
 for the redistribution of copies of Free Software.  In addition, they may
 provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
 service for a fee.  (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
-on making profit from Free Software redistribution.)
+on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
 
 \section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
 
 Many consider \S 2 the heart and soul of the GPL\@.  For many, this is
 where the ``magic'' happens that defends software freedom along the
-distribution chain.  I certainly agree that if GPL has a soul, this is
+distribution chain.  I certainly agree that if the GPL has a soul, this is
 where it is.  However, I argue that the heart is in fact contained in \SS
 4--5 (see Section~\ref{GPLs4} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial).  But, for
 the moment, let us consider the soul.
@@ -734,7 +736,7 @@ share their changes.  On the contrary, \S 2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the
 changes are never distributed.  Indeed, the freedom to make private,
 personal changes to software that are not shared should be protected and
 defended\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf ethical}
-  obligation to redistributor changes that are generally useful, and often
+  obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful, and often
   encourages companies and individuals to do so.  However, there is a
   clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one {\bf
     must} do.}.
@@ -860,21 +862,21 @@ truly GPL'ed.
 Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.
 It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly
 obscured.  Ultimately, the full text of a novel must presented to the
-reader as words in some human-readable language so that they can enjoy the
-work.  A film, even one directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by
+reader as words in some human-readable langauge so that they can enjoy the
+work.  A film, even one directed by David Lynch, must be perceptable by
 human eyes and ears to have any value.
 
-Software is not so.  While the source code, the human-readable
+Software is not so.  While the source code, the human-readible
 representation of software is of keen interest to programmers, users and
 programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
-human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
-can understand --- must be producible and attainable for the software to
+human-readible form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
+can understand --- must be producable and attainable for the software to
 be fully useful.  Without the binaries, be they in object or executable
-form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.
+form, the software serves only the diadactic purposes of computer science.
 
 Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply
 derivative works of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
-``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code.  The binary
+``compilation'') to a work of source code yeilds binary code.  The binary
 code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of
 electronic file storage.
 
@@ -892,7 +894,7 @@ of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.
 However, \S 3 must go a bit further.  Access to the software's source code
 is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the fundamental
 freedoms to modify and improve the software.  Making even the most trivial
-changes to a software program at the binary level is effectively
+changes to a software program at the binary level is effecitvely
 impossible.  \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never distributed
 without the source code, so that these freedoms are ensured to be passed
 along the distribution chain.
@@ -1159,21 +1161,49 @@ freedom.
 \section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
 \label{GPLs6}
 
-Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
-the licensee to perform acts of copying, modification, and redistribution
-that would otherwise have been prohibited by default.  Since, barring
-special permission from the copyright holder, the GPL is a licensee's one
-and only license to the software (thanks to \S 6),
-
-\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give My Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
+A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLs4}'s discussion of \S 4
+was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@.  The GPL is indeed irrevocable,
+and it is made so formally \S 6.
+
+The first sentence in \S 6 ensures that as software propagates down the
+distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
+new licensee.  Under \S 6, the act of distributing automatically grants a
+license from the original licensor to the next recipient.  This creates a
+chain of grants that ensure that everyone in the distribution has rights
+under the GPL\@.  In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---
+making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than than the
+licensee before.
+
+The second sentence of \S 6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top.  It
+prohibits any licensor along the distribution chain from placing
+additional restrictions on the user.  In other words, no additional
+requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPL\@.
+
+The final sentence of \S 6 makes it abundantly clear that no individual
+entity in the distribution chain is responsible for the compliance of any
+other.  This is particularly important for non-commercial users who have
+passed along a source offer under \S 3(c), as they cannot be assured that
+the issuer of the offer will honor their \S 3 obligations.
+
+In short, \S 6 says that your license for the software is your one and
+only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
+software.
+
+\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
 \label{GPLs7}
 
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
+In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
+systems what \S 6 says for copyright.  If there exists any reason that a
+distributor knows of that would prohibit those who would later receive
+the software from the distribution
 
-\section{GPL \S 8}
+\section{GPL \S 8: Finding Freedonia}
 \label{GPLs8}
 
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
+
 \section{GPL \S 9}
 \label{GPLs9}
 
