diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 3d3ed64a3d0d06989443676aa6e32cb6fa0f02c1..ee1760eaeaf924904993c0c4a40952d418a938e7 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -1578,9 +1578,9 @@ say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.)
 \label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge}
 The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed \ldots at no charge.''
 This phrase  confuses many.  The sloppy reader points out this as ``a
-contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that redistributors cannot
+contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that re-distributors cannot
 charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but GPLv2~\S1 says that
-they can.  Avoid this confusion: the ``at no charge'' \textbf{does not} prohibit redistributors from
+they can.  Avoid this confusion: the ``at no charge'' \textbf{does not} prohibit re-distributors from
 charging when performing the acts governed by copyright
 law,\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge for any acts not
 governed by copyright law, because the license controls are confined
@@ -1598,7 +1598,7 @@ available to the public at large.  However, the text here does not say
 that.  Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must
 extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy
 of the software.  Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,
-but GPLv2~\S2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in
+but GPLv2~\S2(b) does require re-distributors to license the derivative works in
 a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a
 copy of the software.
 
