Fixes for typos

Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -1473,7 +1473,7 @@ continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
 To achieve that goal, GPLv2~\S2 first sets forth that the rights of
 redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
 copying, as presented in GPLv2~\S1.  Therefore, the details of charging money,
-keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are in tact
+keeping copyright notices intact, and other GPLv2~\S1 provisions are intact
 here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.
 
 The first (GPLv2~\S2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
@@ -1671,7 +1671,7 @@ 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-readable
-representation of software is of keen interest to programmers -- users and
+representation of software --- is of keen interest to programmers, users and
 programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
 human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
 can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to
@@ -2302,7 +2302,7 @@ FSF sought to ease interpretation of GPL in other countries by replacement of
 USA-centric\footnote{See Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} of this tutorial for
   a brief discussion about non-USA copyright systems.}  copyright phrases and
 wording with neutral terminology rooted in description of behavior rather
-than specific statue.  As can be seen in the section-by-section discussion of
+than specific statute.  As can be seen in the section-by-section discussion of
 GPLv3 that follows, nearly every section had changes related to issues of
 internationalization.
  
@@ -2803,7 +2803,7 @@ object-code-related copyleft provisions are in GPLv3\S6, discussed in
 \S~\ref{GPLv3s6} of this tutorial).  Compared to GPLv2\S2(b), GPLv3\S5(c)
 states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work.  Such was stated
 already in GPLv2\S2(b), in ``in whole or in part'', but this simplified
-wording makes it clear the entire covered work
+wording makes it clear it applies to the entire covered work.
 
 Another change in GPLv3\S5(c) is the removal of the
 words ``at no charge,'' which was often is misunderstood upon na\"{i}ve
@@ -2839,7 +2839,7 @@ in \S~\ref{GPLv2s3} of this tutorial), the distribution of object code may
 either be accompanied by the machine-readable source code, or it may be
 accompanied by a valid written offer to provide the machine-readable source
 code.  However, unlike in GPLv2, that offer cannot be exercised by any third
-party; rather, only those ``who possesses the object code'' can exercise
+party; rather, only those ``who possess the object code'' can exercise
 the offer.  (Note that this is a substantial narrowing of requirements of
 offer fulfillment, and is a wonderful counterexample to dispute claims that
 the GPLv3 has more requirements than GPLv2.)
@@ -2921,7 +2921,7 @@ over a network, provided that the distributor offers equivalent access to
 copy the Corresponding Source Code ``in the same way through the same
 place''.  This wording might be interpreted to permit peer-to-peer
 distribution of binaries \textit{if} they are packaged together with the CCS,
-but such packaging impractical, for at least three reasons.  First, even if
+but such packaging is impractical, for at least three reasons.  First, even if
 the CCS is packaged with the object code, it will only be available to a
 non-seeding peer at the end of the distribution process, but the peer will
 already have been providing parts of the binary to others in the network.
@@ -2933,7 +2933,7 @@ transmission time.  Third, in current practice, CCS packages themselves tend
 -- thus, there generally will be too few participants downloading the same
 source package at the same time to enable effective seeding and distribution.
 
-GPLv3~\S6(e) addresses this issues.  If a licensee conveys such a work of
+GPLv3~\S6(e) addresses these issues.  If a licensee conveys such a work of
 object code using peer-to-peer transmission, that licensee is in compliance
 with GPLv3~\S6 if the licensee informs other peers where the object code and
 its CCS are publicly available at no charge under subsection GPLv3~\S6(d).
@@ -2969,7 +2969,7 @@ to enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.)
 
 \label{user-product}
 
-The scope of these requirements are narrow.  GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept
+The scope of these requirements is narrow.  GPLv3~\S6 introduces the concept
 of a ``User Product'', which includes devices that are sold for personal,
 family, or household use.  Distributors are only required to provide
 Installation Information when they convey object code in a User Product.
@@ -3009,7 +3009,7 @@ favorable to consumer rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product
   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
+  intended to 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.
@@ -3038,7 +3038,7 @@ including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
 promoted for use in the home.}.
 
 However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components
-of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss under-inclusive.
+of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss is under-inclusive.
 Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may
 not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building
   materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for
@@ -4309,7 +4309,7 @@ embedded targets. Eventually, Cygnus was so successful that
 it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a profitable division.
 
 However, there are very small companies that compete in
-this space. Because the code-base is protect by the GPL, it creates and
+this space. Because the code-base is protected by the GPL, it creates and
 demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and
 improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their
 work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target
@@ -4357,7 +4357,7 @@ admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software
 systems are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are
 not legally derivative works of each other. Sometimes, it is easier simply to
 improve existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch. In
-exchange for that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give
+exchange for that benefit, the license requires that the modifier gives
 back to the commons that made the work easier in the first place. It is a
 reasonable trade-off and a way to help build a better world while also
 making a profit.