Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
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
Reply to: