FIXME: no discussion of GPLv2 system lib exception
Termination inevitability w/ aggregated GPLv2-only

Most redistributors, at least with regard to embedded systems, typically
include the kernel named Linux with their distribution.  As such, even
when GPLv2-or-later and/or GPLv3-{only, or-later} works are included in
the aggregation, the termination implications are effectively those of
GPLv2-only, since it's unlikely in any event the violator will remove
the GPLv2-only work (particularly if it's Linux).
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.

Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html

The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate.  This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).

The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial.  A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's.  Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT".  Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.

Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective.  More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.

Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year.  Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial.  However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.

Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:

§3(a)(1)(a)(i):    This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
                   as the source of the material herein committed.

§3(a)(1)(a)(i):    Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
                   as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
                   include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
                   Freedom Law Center.

§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1):          of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.

§3(a)(2):          The attribution information is fully included in
                   this Git repository.

§3(a)(3):          I and this project have received no such request.

§3(b)(1):          The license of the larger work was already
                   CC BY SA 4.0 International.

§3(b)(3):          No such conditions are imposed.