diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index b02692b..5014c34 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -134,9 +134,9 @@ designed to defend and uphold these principles.
 \label{Free Software Definition}
 
 The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
-\href{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html}.
-This section presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts
-that are most pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
+\verb0http://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0.  This section
+presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most
+pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
 
 A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
 that program, the following freedoms:
@@ -165,8 +165,7 @@ Source''.  Besides having a different political focus than those who call
 it Free Software\footnote{The political differences between the Free
 Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's
 website at
-\href{http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}
-{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}.},
+{\tt http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}},
 those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side issue.
 User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite to make use
 of the freedom to modify.  However, the important issue is what freedoms
@@ -236,7 +235,7 @@ to commission software modification.
 \subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
 
 Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways.  Free Software
-advocates work to eliminate fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
+advocates work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
 age: choosing between obeying a software license, and friendship (by
 giving away a copy of a program your friend who likes the software you are
 using).  Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of
@@ -317,7 +316,7 @@ law\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification.  Patents
   source code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution
   without reliance on any legal system.  However, the primary control
   mechanism for software is copyright.}.  Copyright law, with respect to
-software governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
+software, governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
 software\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public
   performance'' of copyrighted works.  There is no generally agreed
   definition for public performance of software and version 2 of the GPL
@@ -368,7 +367,7 @@ Software.
 
 Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
 in any way.  It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
-public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave an
+public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
 expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
 
 By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
@@ -409,7 +408,7 @@ and that work of of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
 its work today.  Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
 extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
 and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms, and many, including the
-developers of the kernel named Linux have chosen to follow this paradigm.
+developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
 
 Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
 freedom.  The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
@@ -470,10 +469,10 @@ it was deployed non-commercially in academic environments.  However, very
 soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
 as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
 Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of
-ownership by orders of magnitude.  There was suddenly room in Windows
-file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba.  Some of the first
-people hired to do such work were those same two graduate students who
-originally developed the software.
+running such servers by orders of magnitude.  There was suddenly room in
+Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba.  Some of
+the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate
+students who originally developed the software.
 
 The non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
 fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'ed work.  They knew
@@ -591,6 +590,7 @@ are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of
 how software freedom is respected.
 
 \section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
+\label{GPLs0}
 
 \S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by
 copyright law.  It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright
@@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute.  By
 contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue
 nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by
 many users.  An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the
-programs source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
+program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
 how to be a better programmer.
 
 \medskip
@@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
 
 The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a
 definition of ``derivative work''.  In fact, it would be incorrect and
-problematic if the GPL attempt to define this.  A copyright license, in
+problematic if the GPL attempted to define this.  A copyright license, in
 fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work.  This
 matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it.
 
@@ -655,6 +655,7 @@ even the GNU GPL -- can be blamed for this.  Legislators and court
 opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.
 
 \section{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}
+\label{GPLs1}
 
 GPL \S 1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program
 exactly as it was received.  This section is quite straightforward.
@@ -705,7 +706,7 @@ modifies a GPL'ed program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S
 continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
 
 To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of
-redistribution modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
+redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
 copying, as presented in \S 1.  Therefore, the details of charging,
 keeping copyright notices intact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact
 here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.
@@ -718,10 +719,10 @@ seeks to ensure that those receiving modified versions know what path it
 took to them.  For some users, it is important to know that they are using
 the standard version of program, because while there are many advantages
 to using a fork, there are a few disadvantages.  Users should be informed
-the historical context of the software version they use, so that they can
-make proper support choices.  Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic purpose
---- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach to
-understand the software.
+about the historical context of the software version they use, so that
+they can make proper support choices.  Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic
+purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach
+to understand the software.
 
 \medskip