diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index e13d478ea3307b973a9092665661bc8e5514130b..b2b364b37f592e8d2294e6944132360c5815b410 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -3787,197 +3787,6 @@ possibility of such damages.}
 
 That's all there is to it!
 
-\chapter{GPL Version 3: Background to Adoption}
-
-\textbf{\textit{\large{by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen}}}
-
-\smallskip
-
-The GNU General Public License (``the GPL'') has remained
-unmodified, at version level 2, since 1991.  This is extraordinary
-longevity for any widely-employed legal instrument.  The durability of
-the GPL is even more surprising when one takes into account the
-differences between the free software movement at the time of version
-2's release and the situation prevailing in 2005.
-
-Richard M. Stallman, founder of the free software movement and author
-of the GNU GPL, released version 2 in 1991 after taking legal advice
-and collecting developer opinion concerning version 1 of the license,
-which had been in use since 1985.  There was no formal public comment
-process and no significant interim transition period.  The Free
-Software Foundation immediately relicensed the components of the GNU
-Project, which comprised the largest then-existing collection of
-copyleft software assets.  In Finland, Linus Torvalds adopted GPL
-Version 2 for his operating system kernel, called Linux.
-
-That was then, and this is now.  The GPL is employed by tens of
-thousands of software projects around the world, of which the Free
-Software Foundation's GNU system is a tiny fraction.  The GNU system,
-when combined with Linus Torvalds' Linux---which has evolved into a
-flexible, highly-portable, industry-leading operating system kernel
---- along with Samba, MySQL, and other GPL'd programs, offers superior
-reliability and adaptability to Microsoft's operating systems, at
-nominal cost.  GPL'd software runs on or is embedded in devices
-ranging from cellphones, PDAs and home networking appliances to
-mainframes and supercomputing clusters.  Independent software
-developers around the world, as well as every large corporate IT buyer
-and seller, and a surprisingly large proportion of individual users,
-interact with the GPL.
-
-During the period since 1991, of course, there has developed a
-profusion of free software licenses.  But not in the area covered by
-the GPL.  The ``share and share alike'' or ``copyleft'' aspect of the
-GPL is its most important functional characteristic, and those who
-want to use a copyleft license for software overwhelmingly use the GPL
-rather than inventing their own.
-
-Updating the GPL is therefore a very different task in 2005 than it
-was in 1991.  The substantive reasons for revision, and the likely
-nature of those changes, are subject matter for another essay.  At
-present we would like to concentrate on the institutional, procedural
-aspects of changing the license.  Those are complicated by the fact
-that the GPL serves four distinct purposes.
-
-\section*{The GPL is a Worldwide Copyright License}
-
-As a legal document, the GPL serves a purpose that most legal drafters
-would do anything possible to avoid: it licenses copyrighted material
-for modification and redistribution in every one of the world's
-systems of copyright law.  In general, publishers don't use worldwide
-copyright licenses; for each system in which their works are
-distributed, licensing arrangements tailored to local legal
-requirements are used.  Publishers rarely license redistribution of
-modified or derivative works; when they do so, those licenses are
-tailored to the specific setting, factual and legal.  But free
-software requires legal arrangements that permit copyrighted works to
-follow arbitrary trajectories, in both geographic and genetic terms.
-Modified versions of free software works are distributed from hand to
-hand across borders in a pattern that no copyright holder could
-possibly trace.
-
-GPL version 2 performed the task of globalization relatively well,
-because its design was elegantly limited to a minimum set of copyright
-principles that signatories to the Berne Convention must offer, in one
-form or another, in their national legislation.  But GPL2 was a
-license constructed by one US layman and his lawyers, largely
-concerned with US law.  To the extent possible, and without any
-fundamental changes, GPL3 should ease internationalization
-difficulties, more fully approximating the otherwise unsought ideal of
-the global copyright license.
-
-\section*{The GPL is the Code of Conduct for Free Software Distributors}
-
-Beyond the legal permission that the GPL extends to those who wish to
-copy, modify, and share free software, the GPL also embodies a code of
-industry conduct with respect to the practices by which free software
-is distributed.  Section 3, which explains how to make source code
-available as required under the license, affects product packaging
-decisions for those who embed free software in appliances, as well as
-those who distribute software collections that include both free and
-unfree software.  Section 7, which concerns the effect of licenses,
-judgments, and other compulsory legal interventions incompatible with
-the GPL on the behavior of software distributors, affects patent
-licensing arrangements in connection with industry standards.  And so
-on, through a range of interactions between the requirements of the
-license and evolving practices in the vending of both hardware and
-software.
-
-The Free Software Foundation, through its maintenance and enforcement
-of the GPL, has contributed to the evolution of industry behavior
-patterns beyond its influence as a maker of software.  In revising the
-GPL, the Foundation is inevitably engaged in altering the rules of the
-road for enterprises and market participants of many different kinds,
-with different fundamental interests and radically different levels of
-market power.  The process of drafting and adopting changes to the
-license must thus approximate standard-setting, or ``best practices''
-definition, as well as copyright license drafting.
-
-\section*{The GPL is the Constitution of the Free Software Movement}
-
-The Free Software Foundation has never been reluctant to point out
-that its goals are primarily social and political, not technical or
-economic.  The Foundation believes that free software---that is,
-software that can be freely studied, copied, modified, reused,
-redistributed and shared by its users---is the only ethically
-satisfactory form of software development, as free and open scientific
-research is the only ethically satisfactory context for the conduct of
-mathematics, physics, or biology.  The Foundation, and those who
-support its broader work, regard free software as an essential step in
-a social movement for freer access to knowledge, freer access to
-facilities of communication, and a more deeply participatory culture,
-open to human beings with less regard to existing distributions of
-wealth and social power.  The free software movement has taken
-advantage of the social conditions of its time to found its program on
-the creation of vast new wealth, through new systems of cooperation,
-which can in turn be shared in order to further the creation of new
-wealth, in a positive feedback loop.
-
-This program is not, of course, universally shared by all the parties
-who benefit from the exploitation of the new wealth created by free
-software.  The free software movement has never objected to the
-indirect benefits accruing to those who differ from the movement's
-goals: one of the powerful lessons the movement has learned from
-previous aspects of the long-duration Western movement for freedom of
-expression is the value of working with, rather than against,
-conventional economic interests and concerns.  But the movement's own
-goals cannot be subordinated to the economic interests of our friends
-and allies in industry, let alone those who occasionally contribute
-solely for reasons of their own.  Changes to the GPL, for whatever
-reason they are undertaken, must not undermine the underlying movement
-for freer exchange of knowledge.  To the extent that the movement has
-identified technological or legal measures likely to be harmful to
-freedom, such as ``trusted computing'' or a broadening of the scope of
-patent law, the GPL needs to address those issues from a perspective
-of political principle and the needs of the movement, not from primary
-regard for the industrial or commercial consequences.
-
-\section*{The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M.\ Stallman}
-
-Some copyright licenses are no doubt known, in the restricted circle
-of one firm or law office, as the achievement of a single author's
-acumen or insight.  But it is safe to say that there is no other
-copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the
-achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure.  Mr.\
-Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its
-integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other
-author or creator.  Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation,
-which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the
-process of its modification.
-
-\section*{Conclusion}
-
-The GPL serves, and must continue to serve, multiple purposes.  Those
-purposes are fundamentally diverse, and they inevitably conflict.
-Development of GPL version 3 has been an ongoing process within the
-Free Software Foundation; we, along with our colleagues, have never
-stopped considering possible modifications.  We have consulted,
-formally and informally, a very broad array of participants in the
-free software community, from industry, the academy, and the garage.
-Those conversations have occurred in many countries and several
-languages, over almost two decades, as the technology of software
-development and distribution changed around us.
-
-When a GPLv3 discussion draft is released, the pace of that
-conversation will change, as a particular proposal becomes the
-centerpiece.  The Foundation will, before it emits a first discussion
-draft, publicize the process by which it intends to gather opinion and
-suggestions.  The Free Software Foundation recognizes that the
-reversioning of the GPL is a crucial moment in the evolution of the
-free software community, and the Foundation intends to meet its
-responsibilities to the makers, distributors and users of free
-software.  In doing so, we hope to hear all relevant points of view,
-and to make decisions that reflect the many disparate purposes that
-the license must serve.  Our primary concern remains, as it has been
-from the beginning, the creation and protection of freedom.  We
-recognize that the best protection of freedom is a growing and vital
-community of the free.  We will use the process of public discussion
-of GPL3 drafts to support and nurture the community of the free.
-Proprietary culture imposes both technology and license terms; free
-software means allowing people to understand, experiment and modify
-software, as well as getting involved in the discussion of license
-terms, so that everyone's ideas can contribute to the common good, and
-the development of each contributes to the development of all.
-
 % =====================================================================
 % END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
 % =====================================================================
