Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:58:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:58:53 -0400 Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:715 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:58:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:58:50 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: "Jonathan A. George" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020422145850.F11216@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To: <3CC4585F.4060005@greshamstorage.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 Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:37:19PM -0500, Jonathan A. George wrote: > 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. Agreed. And the simple fact of Linus using BitKeeper does the _exact_ _same_ _thing_. Talk Linus out of using BitKeeper, and sure, I'll remove the doc. > 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. No, it is not comparable at all with that. There are no license problems with the document -- it is GPL'd. It describes the same thing as Documentation/SubmittingPatches does, and is very relevant to kernel development. > 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. Removing the doc from the kernel sources would be a token gesture only. Some developers disagree violently with the use of non-open-source tools at all, and that is a fundamental disagreement. The majority of the "silently seething" developers, I imagine, are only gonna be satisfied when (a) BitKeeper is GPL'd or (b) Linus stops using BitKeeper. Both of these seem very remote possibilities at present. Jeff P.S. The doc is _not_ going on the BK website by my hand. (though I have given BitMover permission to post the doc whereever they wish) I can maintain my own docs much better than Larry can :) - 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/