Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S311320AbSDUHpU>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:45:20 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S311403AbSDUHpU>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:45:20 -0400
Received: from pc132.utati.net ([216.143.22.132]:53914 "HELO
	merlin.webofficenow.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S311320AbSDUHpS>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 03:45:18 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:46:43 -0400
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1]
Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0204201513170.1960-100000@imladris.surriel.com> <E16yeIP-0000aD-00@starship>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-Id: <20020421080544.4AF3747B@merlin.webofficenow.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 19 April 2002 03:43 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> If I objected to the inclusion of a piece of code licensed under
> Microsoft's 'shared source' license, whould you also say I was denying your
> freedom?

I'd say that in that case you'd have a legal basis for objecting: a license 
conflict with a tarball full of GPL code.

is there a license on the distribution of the documentation in question that 
presents a legal problem for it to be distributed together with GPL kernel 
code?

Rob
-
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/