Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S314408AbSDVSkQ>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:40:16 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S314411AbSDVSkP>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:40:15 -0400
Received: from austin.greshamstorage.com ([216.143.252.250]:8463 "EHLO
	austin.openmic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S314408AbSDVSkP>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:40:15 -0400
Message-ID: <3CC4585F.4060005@greshamstorage.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:37:19 -0500
From: "Jonathan A. George" <JGeorge@greshamstorage.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020421 Debian/1.rc1-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Jeff,

The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and 
endorsement of a product with a license which to many developers 
violates the spirit of open source software.  This is not to say that BK 
is not an effective product, nor that the document in question is useful 
for people who choose the tool, but to me it seems comparable to 
including a closed source binary module in the kernel distribution. 
 Moving the document to the BK website would be nicer, and would 
certainly assauge bad feelings regarding such an integral implicit 
endorsement of a tool.

--Jonathan--

-
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/