* Wrote about GPL Section 7

Added typo fixes from Ammad.
	(section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}):
	Wrote section.

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -862,21 +862,21 @@ truly GPL'ed.
 Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.
 It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly
 obscured.  Ultimately, the full text of a novel must presented to the
-reader as words in some human-readable langauge so that they can enjoy the
-work.  A film, even one directed by David Lynch, must be perceptable by
+reader as words in some human-readable language so that they can enjoy the
+work.  A film, even one directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by
 human eyes and ears to have any value.
 
-Software is not so.  While the source code, the human-readible
+Software is not so.  While the source code, the human-readable
 representation of software is of keen interest to programmers, users and
 programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
-human-readible form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
-can understand --- must be producable and attainable for the software to
+human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
+can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to
 be fully useful.  Without the binaries, be they in object or executable
-form, the software serves only the diadactic purposes of computer science.
+form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.
 
 Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply
 derivative works of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
-``compilation'') to a work of source code yeilds binary code.  The binary
+``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code.  The binary
 code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of
 electronic file storage.
 
@@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.
 However, \S 3 must go a bit further.  Access to the software's source code
 is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the fundamental
 freedoms to modify and improve the software.  Making even the most trivial
-changes to a software program at the binary level is effecitvely
+changes to a software program at the binary level is effectively
 impossible.  \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never distributed
 without the source code, so that these freedoms are ensured to be passed
 along the distribution chain.
@@ -1194,8 +1194,22 @@ software.
 
 In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
 systems what \S 6 says for copyright.  If there exists any reason that a
-distributor knows of that would prohibit those who would later receive
-the software from the distribution
+distributor knows of that would prohibit later licensees from exercising
+their full rights under GPL, then distribution is prohibited.
+
+Originally, this was designed as the title of this section suggests --- as
+a last ditch effort to make sure that freedom was upheld.  However, in
+modern times, it has come to give much more.  Now that the body of GPL'ed
+software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of
+GPL'ed software have a tough choice.  They must choose between avoiding
+distribution of GPL'ed software that exercises the teachings of their
+patents, or grant a royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to
+those patents.  Many companies, including IBM, the largest patent holder
+in the world, have chosen the latter.
+
+Thus, \S 7 is rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution.
+Instead, it is inspiring patent holders to share their patents in the same
+freedom-defending way that they share their copyrighted works.
 
 \section{GPL \S 8: Finding Freedonia}
 \label{GPLs8}