On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > > What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is > > essentially this: > > > > We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have > > permission to remove them. > > > > Or rewritten slightly more clearly (by "bad bits" I obviously mean > > invariant sections, cover texts etc.): > > > > We will not include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits if we have > > permission to remove them. > > Sorry, but the above two sentences mean something *completely* > different. Either you had a brain fart here, or your knowledge of the > English language is... strange.
Bah, brain fart indeed. Negated the wrong bit. Not entirely surprising given that the original didn't make sense anyway. Fixed, it translates to: "We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits if we do not have permission to remove them." "Them" cannot apply to non-existent bad bits, so can only apply to the works. So, who has to give us permission to remove things? This does *not* make sense... Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
