Some edits to chapter 1, mostly stylistic and minor.

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -110,13 +110,14 @@ to have learned the following:
 
 Study of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as \defn{GNU
   GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader world
-of software freedom. The GPL was not created from a void, rather, it was
+of software freedom. The GPL was not created in a vacuum. Rather, it was
 created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set forth at the
 founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) -- the
-organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software
-freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions of GPL
+preeminent organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software
+freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions
+of the GPL
 (GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of
-the principles behind it.  The GPL family of licenses are unlike almost all
+the principles behind them.  The GPL family of licenses are unlike nearly all
 other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these
 principles.
 
@@ -155,7 +156,7 @@ Besides having a different political focus than those who call it Free
 Software,\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software
   Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at
   {\tt http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}
-those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
+Those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
 issue.  Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a
 prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify.  However, the important
 issue is what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code.
@@ -166,7 +167,7 @@ exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially.  Licenses that grant
 these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial
 activities are considered non-free.  Even the Open Source Initiative
 (\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules
-such licenses not in fitting with their ``Open Source Definition''.
+such licenses not in fitting with its ``Open Source Definition''.
 
 In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
 restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.''  Typically, the
@@ -178,19 +179,20 @@ commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
 Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
 
 Keep in mind that the none of the terms ``software freedom'', ``open source''
-and ``free software'' are not known to be trademarked by any organization in
+and ``free software'' are known to be trademarked or otherwise legally
+restricted by any organization in
 any jurisdiction.  As such, it's quite common that these terms are abused and
 misused by parties who wish to bank on the popularity of software freedom.
 When one considers using, modifying or redistributing a software package that
 purports to be Open Source or Free Software, one \textbf{must} verify that
-the license grants software freedom
+the license grants software freedom.
 
 Furthermore, throughout this text, we generally prefer the term ``software
 freedom'', as this is the least ambiguous term available to describe software
 that meets the Free Software Definition.  For example, it is well known and
 often discussed that the adjective ``free'' has two unrelated meanings in
 English: ``free as in freedom'' and ``free as in price''.  Meanwhile, the
-term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it refers only to the
+term ``open source'' is even more confusing, because it appears to refer only to the
 ``freedom to study'', which is merely a subset of one of the four freedoms.
 
 The remainder of this section considers each of each component of software
@@ -198,14 +200,14 @@ freedom in detail.
 
 \subsection{The Freedom to Run}
 
-The first tenant of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to
+The first tenet of software freedom is the user's fully unfettered right to
 run the program.  The software's license must permit any conceivable use of
 the software.  Perhaps, for example, the user has discovered an innovative
 use for a particular program, one that the programmer never could have
 predicted.  Such a use must not be restricted.
 
 It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
-software; but such is quite common today. Most End User Licensing Agreements
+software; but such is quite common today. Most End User License Agreements
 (EULAs) that cover most proprietary software typically restrict some types of
 uses.  Such restrictions of any kind are an unacceptable restriction on
 software freedom.
@@ -219,11 +221,11 @@ of this freedom.  Without the source code, and the ability to build and
 install the binary applications from that source, users cannot effectively
 exercise this freedom.
 
-Programmers take direct benefit from this freedom.  However, this freedom
+Programmers directly benefit from this freedom.  However, this freedom
 remains important to users who are not programmers.  While it may seem
 counterintuitive at first, non-programmer users often exercise this freedom
 indirectly in both commercial and noncommercial settings.  For example, users
-often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in users
+often seek noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in user
 groups.  To make use of such help they must either have the freedom to
 recruit programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their
 software, or to at least follow rote instructions to make basic modifications
@@ -246,7 +248,8 @@ respect software freedom, therefore, permit altruistic sharing of software
 among friends.
 
 The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom.  Commercial sharing
-includes selling copies of Free Software: Free Software can be sold at any
+includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
+be distribted for any monetary
 price to anyone.  Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
 the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
 to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.
@@ -270,9 +273,13 @@ share commercially.)
 
 The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
 share those improvements.  The Software freedom community is built on the
-pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Inevitably, a
-Free Software project sprouts a mailing list where improvements are shared
-freely among members of the development community.  Such noncommercial
+pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
+it was typical for a
+Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
+would be shared
+freely among members of the development community.  This is still
+commonly the case, though today there are other or additional ways of
+sharing Free Software. Such noncommercial
 sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.
 
 Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
@@ -331,7 +338,7 @@ software (For details of this in the USA, see
 \textit{United States Code}).\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs
   ``public performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed
   definition for public performance of software and both GPLv2 and GPLv3 do
-  not govern public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other
+  not restrict public performance.} By law (in the USA and in most other
 jurisdictions), the copyright holder (most typically, the author) of the work controls
 how others may copy, modify and/or distribute the work. For proprietary
 software, these controls are used to prohibit these activities. In addition,
@@ -339,14 +346,14 @@ 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 USA, the
+Copyright is not a natural state, it is a legal construction. In the US, 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
 perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
 aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in
 \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus
-covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.
+covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.
 
 However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free
 Software. In an imaginary world with no copyright, the rules would be
@@ -360,8 +367,10 @@ 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.  If copyright is disclaimed, the software is
-not governed by copyright law.   Software not governed by copyright is in the
+\defn{disclaim} their copyright (for example, under US 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
 ``public domain.''
 
 \subsection{Public Domain Software}