Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:41:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:41:03 -0400 Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:56774 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:41:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:40:59 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Daniel Phillips Cc: dean gaudet , Larry McVoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020422134059.B11216@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To:

<20020422130328.C6638@havoc.gtf.org> 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 Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:27:37PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > 1) It would be equally as useful as a URL Maybe 5% less useful or so. There are reasons we move other (non-controversial) docs into the kernel source. 100% of these docs can be URLs. > 2) It would not consume download bandwidth This is a silly argument that dean gaudet dismembered. It's 12K compressed and not your main argument at all. > 3) It would show some sensitivity to the concerns of those who are > uncomfortable with the license. I agree. So, I believe points #1 and #2 are silly, and #3 is your core argument. And I agree that it would show sensitivity towards those people who dislike the BK license. That said, I still think removing the doc is a hideously wrong thing to do. I see the action of BK doc removal as encouraging some strict notion of what we can and cannot discuss, inside the kernel sources. _That_ is the free speech aspect. I see enforcing a strict notion of acceptable speech in the kernel sources as a very bad thing for the Linux project. I'm not asking you to agree -- but do you even understand my viewpoint here? > > 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.) First, I can host the doc. And will, if there is justification. I do not see a justification. Larry is irrelevant. Second, I guarantee that license-related complaints about BitKeeper will continue to exist, regardless of the doc's location. Moving the doc does absolutely nothing to assauge bad feelings about the BK license. 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/