* Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-16 23:30]: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 11:16:42AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> -views the FDL as DFSG-free if invariant sections are not used.</p> >> +views the FDL as DFSG-free even if invariant sections are not used.</p> >> >> That even doesn't give any sense to me here. Is this really correct? I >> mean, the FDL is DFSG-free _especially_ when invariant sections are not >> used, not even... Or what do I not understand here? > > It's a significant change and its all because English is a stupid > imprecise language.
*g* > The addition of the "even" is incorrect. Thanks, that was what I meant, and which states that my english isn't _that_ bad :) So simply remove it again, to make it right, right? Or does anyone else have any suggestion what this change should have addressed? To me it doesn't make any sense, it just makes the conclusion a wrong one. So long, Alfie -- use Mail::Signature; $sig = Mail::Signature->new; print $sig->random;
pgpxGj3EXSVy1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
