Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:31:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:31:11 -0400 Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:13967 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:31:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:31:05 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Stevie O Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020420183105.B18057@havoc.gtf.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 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:00:36PM -0400, Stevie O wrote: > (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? (IMO my answer fits for both these examples) > (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? In the strictest sense, yes. But the key difference would be his reasoning in your example would be technical, whereas Daniel's stated reason was ideology. One of the reasons why I like the Linux kernel is the freedom to make the best technical decision, regardless of conflicting ideologies or politics. Jeff - 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/