Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S314343AbSD0SaY>; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:30:24 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S314351AbSD0SaX>; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:30:23 -0400
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:16275 "EHLO math.psu.edu")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S314343AbSD0SaP>;
	Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:30:15 -0400
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
To: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] BK license change
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204271103290.5887-100000@k2-400.lameter.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0204271425030.25240-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> The best thing would be to stop this egg-dance around open sourceness and
> release BK under GPL. This is wasting too much time. Trying to use a

1001st time, CHOICE OF LICENSE BELONGS AUTHOR OF CODE IN QUESTION, dimwit.
How many times should that be repeated until it sinks down?

> I do not even know how BK works and I am not interested ...
> just offended by ppl making access to development kernel source code
> difficult

... and who the hell would these people be?  I _AM_ interested since
I'm not using BK and I'm working on aforementioned development kernel
source.  Care to enlighten me?

Until you've got real arguments (ones that would include some proof
if the claims you've made) - fuck off and stop polluting l-k with
your drivel.

-
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/