"parts" is an unnecessary word here.

I don't see a specific difference between "all parts of the Covered Work"
and "all of the Covered Work".  Since Covered Work is a defined term, if
anything, "parts" should be included in its definition.  However, I tend
to believe it just isn't necessary.  "all of the Covered Work" means "all
parts".  How could it not?
Don't limit Corresponding Source to only have meaning when Covered Work is Distributed.

There is no reason in my view for Corresponding Source to only have
meaning when a Covered Work is Distributed.  Therefore, remove the word
"Distributed" from the Corresponding Source definition.
"all of" is probably not needed either.

If you don't say "all of" the Covered Work, and just say "the Covered
Work", doesn't it mean "all of" it.  How could it not mean all of it?
"specific" instructions is, well, "too specific".

I don't like "specific" here.  I see lots of CCS that has "vague
instructions" which are nonetheless helpful.  We don't want violators to
be able to say: "Well, the instructions we have aren't very specific, so
we don't have to provide them."  If all they have are vague instructions,
they must nonetheless provide what they know and what they've got.

Violators *will* argue this if we don't remove "specific".  So, it's
herein removed.
"information" should also be included alongside "instructions"

Again, violators could easily say that what they have are not instructions
per se, even if we as copyleft enforcers would disagree.  Adding
"information" here makes it much more general than just scripts and
instructions.

For good measure, an "and/or" is put in place as well.
"skilled developer" shouldn't be mandated.

Having "skilled developer" in there is just a pure give away to
violators.  They'll argue that our developers aren't skilled enough, so
inadequate CCS is acceptable.  There is no way that we should just give
that away to them.
Reincorporate important verbs needed to clarify Corresponding Source definition

Many of my various proposed improvements to Corresponding Source
definition were rejected, and the Corresponding Source definition has
drifted considerable since then.

This change reincorporate important verbs and nouns into the definition
that are necessary to avoid arguments by violators that they can provide
inadequate build/install scripts and/or instructions.
Require Corresponding Source to identify, name and describe any needed Separate Works.

It's certainly historical GPL policy that Separate Works (if we can get an
adequate definition of Separate Works) need not be included as part of
Corresponding Source.

However, it's industry practice and is believed by most to be required
under GPLv2 to at least name, identify, and describe Separate Works that
are needed.

For example, for decades, the expected requirement under GPLv2 for
Microsoft Windows software has been to describe the precise proprietary
compiler suite (and its specific version number) needed to build the
software.

This change implements that long-standing policy and interpretation into
clear license text for copyleft-next.
Merge commit 'refs/merge-requests/18' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next into merge-requests/18
Applies some bkuhn changes to CS definition, with modifications
Typographical fix.