diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 4118a8ab52724385fc6d3819ab9f2888f3054d49..0796b635ce09dc3c89ed192d8ee3f80beeabcd8b 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ among friends.
 
 The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom.  Commercial sharing
 includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
-be distribted for any monetary
+be distributed for any monetary
 price to anyone.  Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
 the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
 to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
 For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all
 developers -- from single-person contractors to large software
 companies -- must have the freedom to market their services as
-improvers of Free Software.  All forms of such service marketing must
+augmenters of Free Software.  All forms of such service marketing must
 be equally available to all.
 
 For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
@@ -827,7 +827,7 @@ were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use\footnote{It
   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
-GPLv1's innovation of reuable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
+GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
 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
@@ -944,7 +944,7 @@ This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.
 
 Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such
 as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License
-and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders chosing
+and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
 to use any version of those licenses to automatically accept and relicense
 their copyrighted works under new versions.  Of course ,Creative Commons, the
 Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF) have generally
@@ -1098,13 +1098,13 @@ Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do
 not believe that software comes with any warranty.  Notwithstanding the
 \href{http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/hb0019.htm}{Maryland's} and \href{http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+SB372ER}{Virginia's} UCITA bills, there are few or no implied warranties with software.
 However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the
-GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
+GPL requires re distributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
 Sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
 warranty disclaimers.)
 
 Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of
 commercial freedom.  GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
-copies, one may make money.  Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
+copies, one may make money.  Re distributors 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
@@ -1397,7 +1397,7 @@ interpretation of copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with
 respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a
 derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume
 that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the
-majority rule amongst those circuits that have a standard for defining
+majority rule among those circuits that have a standard for defining
 a software derivative work.
 
 \section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}
@@ -1439,14 +1439,14 @@ structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.
 Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as
 both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the 
 First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for 
-compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
+compatibility'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
 Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),
 and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b). 
 
 Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly
 detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
 clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of
-the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.  
+the defendant or over-aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.  
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
@@ -1565,7 +1565,7 @@ holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary
 product --- would its copyright holders  give you permission to create and distribute
 \gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the
 GPL, states the  options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
-who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  GPL's pregranted
+who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  GPL's pre-granted
 permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
 of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
 would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  (Thus, to
@@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ GPL'd software into mobile devices with very tight memory and space
 constraints.  In such cases, putting the source right alongside the
 binaries on the machine itself might not be an option.  While it is
 recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
-GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible.
+GPL does provide options when such distribution is unfeasible.
 
 \label{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily}
 GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
@@ -1885,7 +1885,7 @@ Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, the
 Federal Circuit extended that rule to include any future recipients of the
 patented article, not just the direct recipient from the distributor.
 This theory comports well with the idea of Free Software, whereby software
-is distributed amongst many entities within the community for the purpose
+is distributed among many entities within the community for the purpose
 of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied
 patent license used by the GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually
 benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.
@@ -1920,7 +1920,7 @@ infringement claims against the non-GPLv2-compliant party and
 infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only
 extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPLv2. Further, if
 Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program 
-that is not a derivative work of Company \compA{}'s GPL'ed Web browsing software
+that is not a derivative work of Company \compA{}'s GPL'd Web browsing software
 program, Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or
 distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's
 program is also distributed under the GPLv2, as Company \compB{} can not grant
@@ -2017,7 +2017,7 @@ valid. This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
 as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
 
 The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.''  Usually, no rights
-are transfered between parties.  By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission
+are transferred between parties.  By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission
 slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited
 by copyright law.  As such, GPL needs no acceptance ceremony; the
 licensee is not even required to accept the license.
@@ -2912,7 +2912,7 @@ limitation or further obligation.
 
 As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks thwart
 technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent
-modification of GPLed software on a device.
+modification of GPL'd software on a device.
 
 To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object
 code provide recipients with the source code through certain means.  When
@@ -2997,7 +2997,7 @@ including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
 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 underinclusive.
+of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss under-inclusive.
 Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may
 not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building
   materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for
@@ -3324,7 +3324,7 @@ However, the patent licensing practices that GPLv2~\S7 (corresponding to
 GPLv3~\S12) is designed to prevent is only one of several ways in which
 software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
 from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
-approach to combatting the danger of patents.
+approach to combating the danger of patents.
 
 GPLv2~\S7 has seen some success in deterring conduct that would otherwise
 result in denial of full downstream enjoyment of GPL rights, and thus it is
@@ -3528,7 +3528,7 @@ this make a mockery of free software, and we must do everything in our power
 to stop them.
 
 First, GPLv3~\S11\P6 states that any license that protects some recipients of
-GPLed software must be extended to all recipients of the software.  
+GPL'd software must be extended to all recipients of the software.  
 If conveyors arrange to provide patent
 protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that
 protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software,
@@ -4338,3 +4338,26 @@ compliance in new situations.
 % =====================================================================
 % END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
 % =====================================================================
+
+%%  LocalWords:  Sebro Novalis Ravicher GPLv GPL'd copylefted LGPLv OSI USC
+%%  LocalWords:  noncommercially counterintuitive Berne copyrightable DRM UC
+%%  LocalWords:  proprietarize proprietarization Stallman's Tridgell's RMS
+%%  LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's Stallman Proto GPLs proto Tai pre GPL's ful
+%%  LocalWords:  legalbol AGPLv Runtime licensor licensors relicense UCITA
+%%  LocalWords:  unprotectable Intl nd th Kepner Tregoe Bando Indust Mitel
+%%  LocalWords:  Iqtel Bateman Mitek Arce protectable hoc faire de minimis
+%%  LocalWords:  Borland Int'l uncopyrightable LLC APIs Ent Connectix DVD's
+%%  LocalWords:  redistributor diachronic unshared subpart redistributors
+%%  LocalWords:  CDs userbase reshifts licensor's distributee impliedly Mgmt
+%%  LocalWords:  patentee  relicenses irrevocability Jacobsen Katzer TRW CCS
+%%  LocalWords:  Unfreedonia administrivia Relicensing impermissibly centric
+%%  LocalWords:  permissibility firehose bytecode minified Javascript DLLs
+%%  LocalWords:  preprocessors functionalities offsite sublicensing DMCA CFR
+%%  LocalWords:  anticircumvention WIPO BitTorrent multidirectional Magnuson
+%%  LocalWords:  subdefinition Dryvit Stroebner Tandy TRS superset LGPL SLES
+%%  LocalWords:  cryptographic relicensing removability sublicensed Novell
+%%  LocalWords:  anticompetitive administrability sublicensable licensable
+%%  LocalWords:  sublicense sublicensees sublicenses affixation Novell's
+%%  LocalWords:  severability Affero LGPL'd lingua franca glibc facto LGPL's
+%%  LocalWords:  relicensed runtime subunits relink downloadable MontaVista
+%%  LocalWords:  CodeSourcery OpenTV MySQL TrollTech
