Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:43:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:43:00 -0500 Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com ([171.70.157.152]:29931 "EHLO sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:42:17 -0500 From: "Hua Zhong" To: "David Schwartz" , Cc: Subject: RE: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:51:18 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20030121183414.AAA4503@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > First, I would in fact prefer to have the version control > information to make changes. The commit comments, for example, may > explain the rationale for changes. These comments are not part of the source. The source has its own comments. They are helpful when you try to track the changes, but GPL doesn't require releasing the tracking record of a GPL project. It only requires releasing the whole source (or diff). The argument that "BK hosts GPL project so BK has to be GPL'd" is also ridiculous. If so, let's GPL all disks that store any bit of GPL code, including firmware and hardware/chip specs. Then where would we end up? Right, you cannot find anywhere to host any GPL projects. So it's essentially killing GPL in the name of purifying and defending it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/