Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > I do not understand "Q.E.D.". For the other part, if you understand > "run" as "read", which I think is quite appropiate, it works. > > QED means `quod erat demonstrandum', which is Latin for `which was > demonstrated'.
Actually "which was to be demonstrated", BTW. > > > Sorry, but if the documentation of a free program has FDL, > > > then it can contain invariant sections, so that I am limited :) > > > > Wrong. Only if it _has_ invariants. > > No. I'm limited because someone can insert invariant sections > later, a newly modified derivation. I can't reuse that derived > version without taking the invariant section with it. :-) > > You can't take a GPLed licensed work without licensing the derived > work under the same terms as the GPL. So you cannot reuse the > resulting work under a GPL-incompatible license. But you can reuse parts of the work under a GPL-compatible license. And it's up to you which parts you take. > Nothing different > for the GFDL. Quite different for the GFDL. You can reuse parts of the work under a GFDL-compatible license, and you can choose which parts of the non-invariant sections you take, but you always have to take all of the invariant sections. Frank -- Frank Heckenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fjf.gnu.de/ GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E) _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
