diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 4c3ec84..3994694 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -1183,19 +1183,21 @@ on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
 \chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law}
 \label{derivative-works}
 
-% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
-This principle often causes theoretical or
-speculative dispute among lawyers, because ``the work'' is not a unit of
-computer programming. In order to determine whether a ``routine'' an
+As described in the \hyperref[copyleft-definition]{earlier general discussion
+  of copyleft}, strong copyleft licenses such as the GPL seek to uphold
+software freedom via the copyright system.  This principle often causes
+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
 question that copyright law will not directly answer in the same technical
-terms.  (This issue
-%END FIXME-URGENT
+terms.
 
-We digress for this chapter from our discussion of GPL's exact text to
-consider the matter of derivative works --- a concept that we must
-understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@. The GPL, and Free
+Therefore, this chapter digresses from  discussion of GPL's exact text to
+consider the matter of combined and/or derivative works --- a concept that we must
+understand fully before considering GPLv2~\S\S2--3\@.  At least under USA
+copyright law, The GPL, and Free
 Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of
 ``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not
 ``derivative'') of Free Software need not abide by the terms of the