Replace ’ with '.

The unicode ’ was introduced by the pasted text mention in the previous
commits.  While I believe LaTeX can be configured to accept Unicode
quote equivalents, it seems simpler to me merely to replace the
character with an appropriate version that LaTeX expects in this
situation by default.

compliance-guide.tex

@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ Online service providers and distributors alike have other compliance
 obligations.  In general, they must refrain from imposing any additional
 restrictions on downstream parties. Most typically, such compliance problems
 arise from ``umbrella licenses:'' EULAs, or sublicenses that restrict
-downstream users’ rights under copyleft. (See \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} and
+downstream users' rights under copyleft. (See \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} and
 \S~\ref{GPLv3s10}).
 
 Patent holders having claims reading on GPL'd works they distribute must
@@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ software in the company's products.
 
 Fortunately, COGEOs regard GPL compliance failures as an opportunity to
 improve compliance.  Every compliance failure downstream represents a loss of
-rights by their users. The COGEOs are the guardian of its users’ and
+rights by their users. The COGEOs are the guardian of its users' and
 developers' rights.  Their activity seeks to restore those rights, and
-to protect the project’s contributors’ intentions in the making of their
+to protect the project's contributors' intentions in the making of their
 software. 
 
 \chapter{Best Practices to Avoid Common Violations}
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ of the GPL violations ever encountered:
   incomplete, or is not delivered at all).
 
 \item Requestors are ignored when they communicate with violator's published
-  addresses requesting fulfillment of businesses’ obligations.
+  addresses requesting fulfillment of businesses' obligations.
 \end{itemize}
 
 This tutorial therefore focuses primarily on these issue.
@@ -497,7 +497,7 @@ that the full license text must accompany every distribution (either in
 source or binary form) of each licensed work.  Strangely, this requirement is
 responsible for a surprisingly significant fraction of compliance errors; too
 often, physical products lack required information about the presence of
-GPL’d programs and the applicable license terms.  Automated build processes
+GPL'd programs and the applicable license terms.  Automated build processes
 can and should carry a copy of the license from the the source distribution
 into the final binary firmware package for embedded products.  Such
 automation usually achieves compliance regarding license inclusion
@@ -1229,8 +1229,8 @@ contradict this permission.
 
 Thus, under the terms of LGPL, you must refrain from license terms on works
 based on the licensed work that prohibit replacement of the licensed
-components of the larger non-LGPL’d work, or prohibit decompilation or
-reverse engineering in order to enhance or fix bugs in the LGPL’d components.
+components of the larger non-LGPL'd work, or prohibit decompilation or
+reverse engineering in order to enhance or fix bugs in the LGPL'd components.
 
 LGPLv3 is not surprisingly easier to understand and examine from a compliance
 lens, since the FSF was influenced in LGPLv3's drafting by questions and
@@ -1424,8 +1424,8 @@ is most likely to fund improvements on the software.
 A few stories abound in the GPL enforcement community that companies have
 often formed beneficial consulting or employment relationships with
 developers they first encountered through enforcement.  In some cases,
-working together to alter the mode of use of the project’s code in the
-company’s products was an explicit element in dispute resolution.  More
+working together to alter the mode of use of the project's code in the
+company's products was an explicit element in dispute resolution.  More
 often, the communication channels opened in the course of the inquiry served
 other and more fruitful purposes later.
 

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -1190,7 +1190,7 @@ theoretical or speculative dispute among lawyers, because ``the work'' ---
 the primary unit of consideration under most copyright rules -- is not a unit
 of computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an
 ``object'', a ``function'', a ``library'' or any other unit of software is
-part of one ``work'' when combined with other GPL’d code, we must ask a
+part of one ``work'' when combined with other GPL'd code, we must ask a
 question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical
 terms.
 
@@ -1692,14 +1692,14 @@ of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
 would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  Thus, to
 say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
 
-The GPL  recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer’s work is
-``separate and independent'' from any GPL’d program code with which it could be
+The GPL  recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
+``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be
 combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
 separately distributed.  Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
 scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
 
 Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
-``separate and independent'' from any GPL’d program code with which it could
+``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could
 be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
 separately distributed.  Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
 the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
@@ -1707,7 +1707,7 @@ scope of copyright.
 
 GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
 from ``static'' linking of program code.  It is occasionally suggested that a
-subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL’d code is, by virtue of the linking
+subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking
 alone, inherently outside the scope of copyleft on the main work.  This is a
 misunderstanding.  When two software components are joined together to make
 one work (whether a main and some library subroutines, two objects with their
@@ -2271,13 +2271,13 @@ In short, GPLv2~\S6 says that your license for the software is your one and
 only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
 software.
 
-GPLv2~\S6 is GPLv2’s ``automatic downstream licensing''
+GPLv2~\S6 is GPLv2's ``automatic downstream licensing''
 provision\footnote{This section was substantially expanded for clarity and
   detail in \hyperref[GPLv3s10]{GPLv3~\S10}.}.  Each time you
-redistribute a GPL’d program, the recipient automatically receives a license
+redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license
 from each original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the program subject
 to the conditions of the license.  The redistributor need not take any
-to ensure the downstream recipient’s acceptance of the license terms.
+to ensure the downstream recipient's acceptance of the license terms.
 This places every copyright holder in the chain of descent of the code
 in legal privity, or direct relationship, with every downstream
 redistributor.  Two legal effects follow.  First, downstream parties
@@ -3522,7 +3522,7 @@ requirements hat GPLv3 are as follows:
 \item This provision allows limitations on the use of names of licensor for
   publicity purposes.  This provision also yields additional compatibility
   with non-copyleft Free Software licenses that prohibit the use of the
-  licensor’s name on unmodified versions (or other prohibitions on
+  licensor's name on unmodified versions (or other prohibitions on
   advertising rights).  The third clause of the
   \href{http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause}{3-Clause BSD
   License}, for example, long considered de-facto compatible with GPLv2
@@ -3698,7 +3698,7 @@ In general, GPLv3 provides for two classes of patent commitments:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Grant of license to claims in contributor versions: GPLv3~\S11
   introduces an affirmative grant of rights to patent claims by those who
-  contribute code to GPL’d programs. The intent is to prevent parties from
+  contribute code to GPL'd programs. The intent is to prevent parties from
   aggressively asserting patents against users of code those parties have
   themselves modified --- in theory preventing betrayal by ``insiders'' of
   the copyleft community.  A contributor's patent claims necessarily
@@ -3891,8 +3891,8 @@ availability option, so it remains.
 % FIXME-LATER: This text is likely redundant and a bit confusing.  Needs work
 % to use.
 
-%% If A takes a patent license from B that benefits A only, rather than A’s
-%% customers or their distributees, A imposes risk from B’s patents on others
+%% If A takes a patent license from B that benefits A only, rather than A's
+%% customers or their distributees, A imposes risk from B's patents on others
 %% that it does not suffer itself. Under many circumstances, this is an
 %% acceptable outcome. If, however, A is the only possible source of the
 %% program, by taking such a license and distributing in reliance on it, A is in
@@ -4158,7 +4158,7 @@ software is Free Software realize that full copyleft does not best
 serve us. The GNU Lesser General Public License (``GNU LGPL'') was
 designed as a solution for such situations.
 The Lesser General Public License is sometimes described as a ``weak copyleft''
-license, because code licensed under LGPL’s terms can be combined with code
+license, because code licensed under LGPL's terms can be combined with code
 under non-free licenses, and is sometimes used in that fashion.
 
 \section{The First LGPL'd Program}
@@ -4473,7 +4473,7 @@ those versions are themselves libraries.  LGPLv2.1 code can therefore not be
 compliantly taken from its context in a library and placed in a non-library
 modified version or work based on the work.  For its part, LGPLv2~\S6 does
 not provide an exception for this rule: a combination may be made of a
-modified version of an LGPL’d library with other code, but the LGPL’d code
+modified version of an LGPL'd library with other code, but the LGPL'd code
 must continue to be structured as a library, and to that library the terms of
 the license continue to apply.
 
@@ -4759,7 +4759,7 @@ means that it:
 \begin{quote}
 \begin{enumerate}[label=4(d)(\arabic*):,ref=LGPLv3s4d\arabic*]
   \item uses at run time a copy of the library already present on
-    the user’s computer system, rather than copying library functions into
+    the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into
     the executable, and
 
   \item will operate properly with a modified version of