Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:51:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:51:56 -0400 Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:9887 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:51:56 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:51:54 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Rob Landley Cc: Daniel Phillips , Rik van Riel , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020421115154.F2301@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To:

<20020421080544.4AF3747B@merlin.webofficenow.com> 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 09:46:43PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote: > 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? No. The docs in question are covered by the GPL. This is part of where I get the censorship jag. The doc _license_ is GPL, so they are clearly complaining about my GPL'd speech describing proprietary software. Fsck them, I will talk about proprietary software as much as I like. And GPL that speech, as much as I like. Implying (or flat out saying) that _talking_ about something proprietary makes that speech proprietary is silly. Daniel was trying to dictate what we can and cannot talk about, in the kernel sources. That's offensive. 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/