diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index 438ae3140862641c6ad05671c2534ff692f15bf2..9c54e64048cf386136788485f587fb76f8354c40 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -1504,7 +1504,7 @@ generally require permission from the copyright holder to grant explicit
 permission to modify a work in any manner.  As discussed in the next chapter,
 the GPL {\em does} grant such permission, but requires the modified work must
 also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:
-see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial).  Determining whether software was
+see\S~\ref{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial).  Determining whether software was
 modified is a substantially easier analysis than the derivative work
 discussions and considerations in this chapter.
 
@@ -1662,6 +1662,12 @@ of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
 would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  Thus, to
 say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
 
+The GPL  recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
+``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be
+combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
+separately distributed.  Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
+scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
+
 Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
 ``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could
 be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
@@ -1669,15 +1675,6 @@ separately distributed.  Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
 the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
 scope of copyright.
 
-% Comment: The above is only true to the extent that the independent work is
-% not also combined as part of a whole based on the GPL'd program, because in
-% such case, the licensor needs to "extend" the GPL terms to the whole,
-% including the independent work "regardless of who wrote it".
-% 
-% I think the paragraph could thus benefit in clarity by not mentioning the
-% "limits the scope of copyleft to the scope of copyright" here (but that may
-% have to be with the fact I disagree with this statement in general 😉 
-
 GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
 from ``static'' linking of program code.  It is occasionally suggested that a
 subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking