Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * 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?
Eeek. You are correct. I haven't groked the sentence this morning
but applied a proposed fix by somebody who *should* know. Reverting
that now.
Regards,
Joey
--
WARNING: Do not execute! This software violates patent EP0850441.
http://www.elug.de/projekte/patent-party/patente/EP0850441
IP=192.168.0.1;while ping -c 1 $IP;do sleep 1;done;echo Host $IP gone\!
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
