Integrate this LGPL text properly.

Upon a more detailed reading, it's clear this pasted text belongs in the
LGPL license analysis section, but that in fact some other text was
needed to improve the end of the section on LGPL in the compliance
guide.

compliance-guide.tex

@@ -1227,26 +1227,26 @@ engineering for debugging such modifications'' to the library.  Therefore,
 you should take care that the EULA used for the Application does not
 contradict this permission.
 
-%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
-
-Under the terms of LGPL, they must also refrain from license terms on works
+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.
 
-Section 2(a) states that if a licensed work is a software library (defined in
-\S0 as ``a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be
-conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of those
-functions and data) to form executables'') permission is given to distribute
-modified versions only if 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. Section 6
-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
-must continue to be structured as a library, and to that library the terms of
-the license continue to apply.
+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
+comments on LGPLv2.1 over a period of years.  Admittedly, LGPLv2.1 is still
+in wide use, and thus compliance with LGPLv2.1 remains a frequent topic you
+may encounter.  The best advice there is careful study of
+Chapter~\ref{LGPLv2}.
 
-%FIXME-URGENT: END
+However, to repeat a key point here made within that chapter: Note though
+that, since the LGPLv2.1 can be easily upgraded to GPLv2-or-later, in the
+worst case you simply need to comply as if the software was licensed under
+GPLv2.  The only reason you must consider the question of whether you have a
+``work that uses the library'' or a ``work based on the library'' is when you
+wish to take advantage of the ``weak copyleft'' effect of the Lesser GPL\@.
+If GPLv2-or-later is an acceptable license (i.e., if you plan to copyleft the
+entire work anyway), you may find this an easier option.
 
 \section{Upstream Providers}
 \label{upstream}

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -4438,20 +4438,43 @@ have a ``work based on the library.''  If the answer is ``no'' to the
 first but ``yes'' to the second, you are in a gray area between ``work
 based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''
 
-In our years of work with the LGPLv2.1, however, we have never seen a work
-of software that was not clearly one or the other; the line is quite
-bright. At times, though, we have seen cases where a particularly  large work
-in some ways seemed to be both to both a work that used the library and 
-a work based on the library. We overcame this problem by
-dividing the work into smaller subunits. It was soon discovered that
-what we actually had were three distinct components: the original
-LGPL'd work, a specific set of works that used that library, and a
-specific set of works that were based on the library. Once such
-distinctions are established, the licensing for each component can be
-considered independently and the LGPLv2.1 applied to each work as
-prescribed.
+You can also perform a similar same analysis through careful consideration of
+the license text itself.  LGPLv2~\S2(a) states that if a licensed work is a
+software library (defined in LGPLv2~\S0 as ``a collection of software
+functions and/or data prepared so as to be conveniently linked with
+application programs (which use some of those functions and data) to form
+executables''), you have permission to distribute modified versions only if
+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
+must continue to be structured as a library, and to that library the terms of
+the license continue to apply.
 
 
+Either way you view the rules, these issues are admittedly complicated.
+Nevertheless, In our years of work with the LGPLv2.1, however, we have never
+seen a work of software that was not clearly one or the other; the line is
+quite bright. At times, though, we have seen cases where a particularly large
+work in some ways seemed to be both to both a work that used the library and
+a work based on the library. We overcame this problem by dividing the work
+into smaller subunits.  It was soon discovered that what we actually had were
+three distinct components: the original LGPL'd work, a specific set of works
+that used that library, and a specific set of works that were based on the
+library. Once such distinctions are established, the licensing for each
+component can be considered independently and the LGPLv2.1 applied to each
+work as prescribed.
+
+Finally, note though that, since the LGPLv2.1 can be easily upgraded to
+GPLv2-or-later, in the worst case you simply need to comply as if the
+software was licensed under GPLv2.  The only reason you must consider the
+question of whether you have a ``work that uses the library'' or a ``work
+based on the library'' is when you wish to take advantage of the ``weak
+copyleft'' effect of the Lesser GPL\@.  If GPLv2-or-later is an acceptable
+license (i.e., if you plan to copyleft the entire work anyway), you may find
+this an easier option.
+
 \section{Subtleties in Defining the Application}
 
 In our discussion of the definition of ``works that use the library,'' we