Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Roman Zippel
2002-04-23T13:50:05Z

Hi,

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> I have my terminology straight. Everyone have some amount of core
> ideology, I imagine. I was illustrating cause and effect, with the
> above statement.
>
> Ideology is a good thing. If you believe in something, fight for it.

~$ dict ideology
2 definitions found

>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44
[gcide]:
[...]
3. A set or system of theories and beliefs held by an
individual or group, especially about sociopolitical goals
and methods to attain them; in common usage, ideology is
such a set of beliefs so strongly held by their adherents
as to cause them to ignore evidence against such beliefs,
and thus fall into error -- in this sense it is viewed as
a negative trait; contrasted to {pragmatism}, and distinct
from idealism.
[PJC]
[...]

What you're talking about are believes and idealism.

> Read up on censorship. It doesn't have to be private to be censorship.
> In fact, it usually isn't.
>
> Fact: GPL'd BK document contains speech Daniel doesn't like
> Fact: Daniel tried to remove doc because he dislikes its contents
>
> Interpret the facts however you wish.

dict censor
2 definitions found
[...]
censor
n : a person who is authorized to read publications or
correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and
suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene
or politically unacceptable
v 1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or
newspapers [syn: {ban}]
2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This
magazine is censored by the government"

Daniel did clearly state that he wants the documents to be moved, not to
be banned completely.
I grew up in a country, where censorship was very real. I know how it
feels to learn only afterwards what really happened. Believe I'm very
sensitive when it comes to censorship, but Daniels action comes nowhere
close.

> Nobody should feel forced or coerced into using BK, and we should
> actively combat this notion.
>
> I wonder if we can agree, as well, that no one should feel forced or
> coerced into _not_ using BK, also. Do you agree?

I have no problem with that and nobody is demanding that.

> But to be honest, I _do_ feel that Daniel was being a fanatic.
> That's an opinion, and I'm sure some people disagree.

Daniel got lost in defending mutiple position, what is already difficult
enough in a calm discussion. On the other hand you and Larry were pushing
him into a specific corner with hardly let him a chance to get out of it
(especially Larry has a talent for that, as I know from my own
experience). Daniel has some very important points, but his argumentation
was just lousy.

> Free speech is all about letting someone else that you _disagree_ with
> air their opinion. Daniel's patch was not about that principle at all.

Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
question is how seriously do we take this? Do we want to promote free
software or nonfree software? I assume that most people here enjoy working
on Linux and the free exchange of ideas and the GPL ensures that it stays
that way. So how does an endorsement for nonfree software fit in here? You
promote a software, which you can't simply modify to your needs and where
any improvement you make, is owned by someone else.
What Larry does with the result of his work is alone his decision, what
tools you use is also your decision, but what position should we take as a
Linux community? What is more important, freedom or convenience?

bye, Roman