diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index ddd09b66868bf39ce775eaf53be51206792e41f1..f2e9fc583895fc7e8eca912b5c267a66d53c9725 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -3263,7 +3263,7 @@ copyright permissions the contributor granted to the licensee.
 
 GPLv3~\S9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither
 requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL.  Speaking more
-broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured our license as a unilateral grant
+broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured as a unilateral grant
 of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any
 law of contract.  Whether and when a contractual relationship is formed
 between licensor and licensee under local law do not necessarily matter to
@@ -3365,7 +3365,7 @@ preventing that act cannot be unfair).
 
 However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense.  A
 typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs.  It would
-be quite difficult for a redistributor with a large patent portfolio to
+be quite difficult for a re-distributor with a large patent portfolio to
 review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives
 and passes on a new version of the distribution.  Moreover, this question
 raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements
@@ -3457,7 +3457,7 @@ patent claims.
 \subsection{Conveyors' Patent Licensing}
 
 The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are
-granted by conveyance.  The licensing is not as complete or far reaching at
+granted by conveyance.  The licensing is not as complete or far reaching as
 the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.
 
 The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be
@@ -3494,11 +3494,11 @@ CCS to be publicly available.  (In such a case, if the distributor is also a
 contributor, it will already have granted a patent sublicense anyway, and so
 it need not do anything further to comply with the third paragraph.)
 
-Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required in by other
+Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required by other
 sections of the GPL, and the FSF in drafting GPLv3 did not necessarily wish
 to impose a general requirement to make source code available to all, which
 has never been a GPL condition.  However, many vendors who produce products
-that include copylefted software, and who most likely to be affected by the
+that include copylefted software, and who are most likely to be affected by the
 downstream shielding provision, lobbied for the addition of the source code
 availability option, so it remains.
 
@@ -3737,7 +3737,7 @@ Terms to Your New Programs'' to just the bare essentials.
 
 As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically
 designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our
-goal in designing GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd
+goal in designing the GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd
 software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far
 as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.