diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 0642774fad360d75802d2f1c45ef231a800d6824..86df4ecc88ddfe5d4ae7fdd0517af950d7c631d2 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ proprietary software distributors further impede modification in a practical
 sense by distributing only binary code and keeping the source code of the
 software secret.
 
-Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the US, the
+Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the USA, the
 Constitution permits, but does not require, the creation of copyright law as
 federal legislation.  Software, since it is ``an original works of authorship
 fixed in any tangible medium of expression ...  from which they can be
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the
 Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is automatically
 covered by that legal system.  However, it is possible to move software out
 of the domain of the copyright system.  A copyright holder can often
-\defn{disclaim} their copyright (for example, under US copyright law
+\defn{disclaim} their copyright (for example, under USA copyright law
 it is possible for a copyright holder to engage in conduct resulting
 in abandonment of copyright).  If copyright is disclaimed, the software is
 effectively no longer restricted by copyright law.   Software not restricted by copyright is in the
@@ -2249,27 +2249,27 @@ Notices''.
 % FIXME: Transition, GPLv2 ref needed.
 
 Although the definition of ``work based on the Program'' made use of a legal
-term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to US copyright law, we did not
+term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to USA copyright law, we did not
 believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated
 with the use of the term ``distribution.''  After all, differently-labeled
 concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright
 law systems.  That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in
-scope and breadth from the US derivative work was simply a consequence of
+scope and breadth from the USA derivative work was simply a consequence of
 varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work.
 
 %FIXME: should we keep this? maybe a footnote?
 
 Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of
-US-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program''
-definition has come not primarily from readers outside the US, but
+USA-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program''
+definition has come not primarily from readers outside the USA, but
 from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology
 licensing bar.  They have argued that the definition of ``work based
 on the Program'' effectively misstates what a derivative work is under
-US law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means,
+USA law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means,
 to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable.
 They have also asserted that it confounds the concepts of derivative
 and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably,
-to be neatly disjoint under US law.
+to be neatly disjoint under USA law.
 
 % FIXME: As above
 
@@ -2339,7 +2339,7 @@ told that in at least one country distribution may not include network
 transfers of software but may include interdepartmental transfers of physical
 copies within an organization.  In many countries the term ``making available
 to the public'' or ``communicating to the public'' is the closest counterpart
-to the generalized notion of distribution that exists under US law.
+to the generalized notion of distribution that exists under USA law.
 
 Therefore, the GPL defines the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities
 that require permission under ``applicable copyright law'', but excludes
@@ -2364,7 +2364,7 @@ distribution and replacing them with a new factually-based term,
 propagation of copies to others.  With these changes, GPLv3 addresses
 transfers of copies of software in behavioral rather than statutory terms.
 At the same time, we have acknowledged the use of ``making available to the
-public'' in jurisdictions outside the US by adding it as a specific example
+public'' in jurisdictions outside the USA by adding it as a specific example
 in the definition of ``propagate.'' We decided to leave the precise
 definition of an organizational licensee, and the line drawn between
 licensees and other parties, for determination under local law.