diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 229ff22..7ac49fb 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -2956,25 +2956,23 @@ through their weak and unorganized market power.  Even limited to User
 Products, the provision addresses the fundamental problem. Therefore, the
 technical restrictions provisions to User Products.
 
+% FIXME-LATER: link \href to USC 2301
+
 The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of ``consumer
 product'' taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
-consumer protection law in the United States: ``any tangible personal
-property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
-purposes.''\footnote{15 U.S.C.~\S\ 2301.}  The United States has had
-three decades of experience of liberal judicial and administrative
-interpretation of this definition in a manner favorable to consumer
-rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition itself
-has been influential in the United States and Canada, having been
-adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}  We
-mean for this body of interpretation to guide interpretation of the
-consumer product subdefinition in section 6, which will provide a degree
-of legal certainty advantageous to device manufacturers and downstream
-licensees alike.  Our incorporation of such legal interpretation is in
-no way intended to work a general choice of United States law for GPLv3
-as a whole.  The paragraph in section 6 defining ``User Product'' and
-``consumer product'' contains an explicit statement to this effect,
-bracketed for discussion.  We will decide whether to retain this
-statement in the license text after gathering comment on it.
+consumer protection law in the USA found in 15~USC~\S2301: ``any tangible
+personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
+purposes.''  The United States has had three decades of experience of liberal
+judicial and administrative interpretation of this definition in a manner
+favorable to consumer rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product
+  definition itself has been influential in the USA and Canada, having been
+  adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}
+Ideally, this body of interpretation\footnote{The FSF, however, was very
+  clear that incorporation of such legal interpretation was in no way
+  intended work as a general choice of USA law for GPLv3.} will guide
+interpretation of the consumer product subdefinition in GPLv3~\S6, and this
+will hopefully provide a degree of legal certainty advantageous to device
+manufacturers and downstream licensees alike.
 
 One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
 ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage.  That is, in cases where