Purely formatting changes.

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -2976,24 +2976,24 @@ One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
 ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage.  That is, in cases where
 it is not clear whether a product falls under the definition of consumer
 product, the product will be treated as a consumer product.\footnote{16
-C.F.R.~\S\ 700.1(a); \textit{McFadden v.~Dryvit Systems, Inc.}, 54
+CFR~\S\ 700.1(a); \textit{McFadden v.~Dryvit Systems, Inc.}, 54
-U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d 934 (D.~Ore.~2004).}  Moreover, for a given product,
+UCC~Rep.~Serv.2d 934 (D.~Ore.~2004).}  Moreover, for a given product,
 ``normally used'' is understood to refer to the typical use of that type
 of product, rather than a particular use by a particular buyer.
 Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial
 purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a
 commercial entity intending to use the product for commercial
-purposes.\footnote{16 C.F.R. \S \ 700.1(a).  Numerous court decisions
+purposes.\footnote{16 CFR \S \ 700.1(a).  Numerous court decisions
 interpreting Magnuson-Moss are in accord; see, e.g., \textit{Stroebner
 Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028,
 1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).}  Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use
 is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer
-product under Magnuson-Moss.\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
+product under Magnuson-Moss\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
 Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the
 court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where
 such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users,
 including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
-promoted for use in the home.}
+promoted for use in the home.}.
 
 We do not rely solely on the definition of consumer product, however,
 because in the area of components of dwellings we consider the settled