Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree | Date | Sun, 21 Apr 2002 19:57:55 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 22 April 2002 19:40, Jeff Garzik wrote: > 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.
I think you stated that #1 is only 5% silly, by implication, 95% unsilly. Two out of three ain't bad.
> 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 agree. (/me listens for sound of garzik hitting floor) The doc was never to be removed, it was to be moved. Read the original mail please. I repeat: I *like* your docs, in fact I think they are excellent docs. I just don't like to see them sitting in Documentation, for reasons we've been over in some detail.
> 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?
I do. I don't agree with you that any of this has something to do with free speech, but I'm willing to accept that you view the kernel source as a kind of podium.
> > 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.
To this discussion? Debatable. I'll go with you on that for now though, and see where it leads.
> 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.
It would for me, others mileage may vary.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |