[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
At 19:37 22/04/02, 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. 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.

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,


"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on
WWW: &

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.068 / U:9.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site