Two spaces everywhere.

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ and developer base.
 \subsection{The Commercial Community}
 
 By the same token, nearly all established GPL'd software systems have a
-vibrant commercial community. Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained
+vibrant commercial community.  Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained
 wide adoption from noncommercial users and developers eventually begins
 to fuel a commercial system around that software.
 
@@ -581,34 +581,34 @@ it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments\footnote{See
     ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}.  However, very
 soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
 as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
-Microsoft Windows NT file-servers. This served to lower the cost of
+Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of
 running such servers by orders of magnitude. There was suddenly room in
-Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba. Some of
+Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba.  Some of
 the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate
 students who originally developed the software.
 
 The noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
-fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work. They knew
+fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work.  They knew
 that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
 distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
-the standard version. Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
+the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
 Samba, so the noncommercial users, and even other commercial users are
 safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by GPL will remain
 protected.
 
 Commercial developers also work in concert with noncommercial
-developers. Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to
+developers.  Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to
 contribute to Samba altruistically, but also get paid work doing it.
 Priorities change when a client is in the mix, but all the code is
-contributed back to the standard version. Meanwhile, many other
+contributed back to the standard version.  Meanwhile, many other
 individuals have gotten involved noncommercially as developers,
 because they want to ``cut their teeth on Free Software,'' or because
-the problems interest them. When they get good at it, perhaps they
+the problems interest them.  When they get good at it, perhaps they
 will move on to another project, or perhaps they will become
 commercial developers of the software themselves.
 
 No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because
-everyone is on equal ground. The GPL protects rights of the commercial
+everyone is on equal ground.  The GPL protects rights of the commercial
 and noncommercial contributors and users equally. The GPL creates trust,
 because it is a level playing field for all.
 
@@ -617,47 +617,47 @@ because it is a level playing field for all.
 In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},
 Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free
 Software. He argues that the laws of a free society must be protected
-much like the GPL protects software. So that I might do true justice to
+much like the GPL protects software.  So that I might do true justice to
 Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:
 
 \begin{quotation}
 
 A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free
 society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its
-laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its
+laws secret could ever be called free.  No government that hid its
 regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law
-controls. But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible
+controls.  But it does so justly only when visibly.  And law is visible
 only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,
 or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).
 
-This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature. Think
-about the practice of law in American courts. Lawyers are hired by their
-clients to advance their clients' interests. Sometimes that interest is
+This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature.  Think
+about the practice of law in American courts.  Lawyers are hired by their
+clients to advance their clients' interests.  Sometimes that interest is
 advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers
 write briefs. These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.
 These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law
 can stand consistently with a constitution.
 
 All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
-Legal briefs are open and free for others to use. The arguments are
+Legal briefs are open and free for others to use.  The arguments are
 transparent (which is different from saying they are good), and the
 reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.
-The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs. They can be
-copied and integrated into another brief or opinion. The ``source code''
+The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs.  They can be
+copied and integrated into another brief or opinion.  The ``source code''
 for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone
 to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that
-it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before. The
+it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before.  The
 source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
 
 This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve
-lawyers. Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
-though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else. The
-lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the crafting is
+lawyers.  Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
+though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else.  The
+lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public.  Yet the crafting is
 not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work
-without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
+without price.  Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
 the earlier.
 
-We could imagine a legal practice that was different---briefs and
+We could imagine a legal practice that was different --- briefs and
 arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not
 the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one
 else. Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.
@@ -666,31 +666,31 @@ We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it
 ``free.''  Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better
 or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.
 The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than
-efficient application. Instead, openness and transparency are the
+efficient application.  Instead, openness and transparency are the
 constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be
-added if convenient to the leaders. Life governed by software code should
+added if convenient to the leaders.  Life governed by software code should
 be no less.
 
-Code writing is not litigation. It is better, richer, more
-productive. But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
+Code writing is not litigation.  It is better, richer, more
+productive.  But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
 incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products
-created. Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built
+created.  Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built
 upon the work that went before. This adding and changing is what
-creativity always is. And a free society is one that assures that its
+creativity always is.  And a free society is one that assures that its
 most important resources remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This
 quotation is Copyright \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig. It is
 licensed under the terms of
-\texttt{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
+\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
 License'' version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative
 Commons.}
 \end{quotation}
 
 In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
-infrastructure. Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
+infrastructure.  Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
 own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because
 everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.
 
-The Free Software economy is a market ripe for experts. It
+The Free Software economy is a market ripe for experts.  It
 functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the
 law. The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the
 creation of this vibrant commercial and noncommercial Free Software