Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:14:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:14:22 -0400 Received: from mole.bio.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.36.9]:32552 "EHLO mole.bio.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:14:22 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420231218.06e72bf0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:14:29 +0100 To: Stevie O From: Anton Altaparmakov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420175004.00aa9288@whisper.qrpff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 23:00 20/04/02, Stevie O wrote: > From what I can see, this is the situation: > >Daniel is now bothered by the presence of BK documentation in the Linux >kernel tree. Therefore, he submitted a patch to remove this documentation. > >Just about everybody else involved in this thread accuses him of >censorship, for attempting to restrict the dissemination of ideas. I do >not know whether all of these people use BK; all I know is the >"censorship" claim, on the basis that he is restricting the dissemination >of information. > >I ask this: What if, instead of Daniel removing this documentation change, >Linus himself did the patch? That is completely different. Linus owns the Linux kernel. He is the dictator on what happens with it. As such he can do with it as he pleases. If anyone doesn't like his actions, they are free to fork the kernel and do whatever they want. That is what the GPL is all about! This thread is getting sillier and sillier... Best regards, Anton >2600 asserted that source code is speech, with the DeCSS case. I doubt >EVERYONE here agrees with that, but I do agree that source code is a very >precise form of communcating ideas... > > >(1) If I were to write a driver, and submit it for inclusion with the >mainline kernel, would Linus be "censoring" me if he did not include my patch? > >And here is a better reason: > >(2) If I had such a driver included in mainline, and that driver broke in >the 2.5 series -- due to, say, BIO changes, VFS changes, procfs changes, >DMA changes, PCI subsystem changes, you get the idea -- and as a result, >Linus chose to remove it from mainline, he's restricting the dissemination >of my ideas (driver). Does that mean he is censoring me? > >-- > >Stevie-O > >*This sig was deleted for violating the DMCA.* > >- >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/ -- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown -- Anton Altaparmakov (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ - 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/