diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 0ba499fb689c6bdd5740d9800e8dffd3a697e576..cb09653d8abb6ba2af09e6005b6d32dff85798da 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -3269,28 +3269,18 @@ the working of the license.
 
 \section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
 
-% FIXME: These don't belong here, but it's closer to where it ought to be now.
-
-It is important to note that section 11, paragraph 3 refers to a work that is
-conveyed, and section 10, paragraph 2 refers to a kind of automatic
-counterpart to conveying achieved as the result of a transaction. 
-
-% FIXME: needs filled out and more here.
-
-Draft1 removed the words ``at no charge'' from what is now subsection 5b, the
-core copyleft provision, for reasons related to our current changes to the
-second paragraph of section 4: it had contributed to a misconception that the
-GPL did not permit charging for distribution of copies.  The purpose of the
-``at no charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from
-third parties.  The removal of these words created the danger that the
-imposition of licensing fees would no longer be seen as a license
-violation.
-
-We therefore have added a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing
-fees or royalties in section 10.  This section is an appropriate place for
-such a clause, since it is a specific consequence of the general requirement
-that no further restrictions be imposed on downstream recipients of
-GPL-covered code.
+% FIXME-LATER: link up this paragraph to above sections.
+
+GPLv3 removed the words ``at no charge'' from GPLv2~\S2(b) (in GPLv3,~\S5(b))
+because it contributed to a misconception that the GPL did not permit
+charging for distribution of copies.  The purpose of the ``at no charge''
+wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third parties.  The
+removal of these words created the danger that the imposition of licensing
+fees would no longer be seen as a license violation.  Therefore, GPLv3~\S10
+adds a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing fees or royalties.
+This section is an appropriate place for such a clause, since it is a
+specific consequence of the general requirement that no further restrictions
+be imposed on downstream recipients of GPL-covered code.
 
 Careful readers of the GPL have suggested that its explicit prohibition
 against imposition of further restrictions\footnote{GPLv2, section 6; Draft
@@ -3313,6 +3303,12 @@ which the work is based, infringes a patent.
 \section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}
 \label{GPLv3s11}
 
+% FIXME: These don't belong here, but it's closer to where it ought to be now.
+
+It is important to note that section 11, paragraph 3 refers to a work that is
+conveyed, and section 10, paragraph 2 refers to a kind of automatic
+counterpart to conveying achieved as the result of a transaction. 
+
 The patent licensing practices that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to
 section 12 of GPLv3) was designed to prevent are one of several ways in which
 software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
