Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:27:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:27:06 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-039-131.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.39.131]:19869 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:27:05 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 19:27:37 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: dean gaudet , Larry McVoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

<20020422130328.C6638@havoc.gtf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 22 April 2002 19:03, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Let us separate that fact from the notion that it is a BK > advertisement, and discuss that part, since that seems to be the > important issue. As the author of the doc, I state the doc was > not written as an advertisement, and was not paid for, directly > or indirectly. > > That said, it certainly can been seen as an advertisement. OK, we've established that then. > I like BK, and like to encourage others to use it. > > So let us term the BK doc as, "not intended as an advertisement, > but can easily be considered such." I hope we agree so far? :) > > Now that we have that... > > Q. What is the justification for removing an admittedly-useful > advertisement? 1) It would be equally as useful as a URL 2) It would not consume download bandwidth 3) It would show some sensitivity to the concerns of those who are uncomfortable with the license. > There is no dispute that the doc is useful, only dispute with certain > beliefs. Disagreement is fine... encouraged, even. But that's a > poor justification to remove the doc from the tree. > > I hear your point, I really do. I just feel very strongly that > removing the BK docs from the tree is the worst way to go about > supporting this point of view. I really don't see how changing out the files for a url qualifies as the "worst way" of addressing the issue. If Larry unretracts his offer to host the files - and I fully expect he will do that after some period of indulging in his wounded bird act - then by definition the documentation will always be available exactly when and where needed. Is there *anybody* here who'd have further license-related complaints about Bitkeeper if that were done? (Speak or forever hold your peace.) -- Daniel - 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/