Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S314705AbSDVTry>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:47:54 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S314704AbSDVTrw>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:47:52 -0400
Received: from mole.bio.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.36.9]:33798 "EHLO
	mole.bio.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S314705AbSDVTrk>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:47:40 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020422204204.00ad1e60@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:47:39 +0100
To: "Jonathan A. George" <JGeorge@greshamstorage.com>
From: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Cc: Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <3CC4585F.4060005@greshamstorage.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

At 19:37 22/04/02, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>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--

I hereby publically endorse the use of bitkeeper. I think it's a great tool 
and I think anyone who is not using it is missing out. Anyone who asks me 
what a good SCM to use is will hear "bitkeeper" from me. And I shall not 
change my mind until a better or at least as good tool becomes available.

Taking out the document only because it describes a non-free tool is 
ridiculous. I don't object to the removal per se. I could live with that. I 
object to the REASONS for removal.

And I am prepared to speak for that, in case you hadn't noticed. (-;

How about that?

Best regards,

Anton


-- 
   "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
-- 
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/

-
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/