Re: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T17:44:21Z

On Monday 22 April 2002 19:21, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:17:45PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Monday 22 April 2002 19:10, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Do you have a problem with moving other docs out to Websites, which are
> > > describing closed-spec hardware? Such hardware (and their vendors) are
> > > actively anti-open source, yet we have documents describing those, too.
> >
> [response not answering the question deleted]

Huh? Are you reading the same mails I am?

As far as I can see: question about moving the jfs CVS docs out of the tree
as well, answered fully and, imho, correctly by me.

> Daniel, this is yet another example of you not answering the question asked.
> Let's try it again. Please answer the following question, since you seem
> to have elected yourself to position of license policeman:
>
> There are number of different places in the linux kernel source tree
> where there are docs/code/whatever related to non-open source features
> included in the tree. Are you advocating a "cleansing" of all of these
> or are you specifically targetting BitKeeper. If you are only focussed
> on BitKeeper, why?

Focussed on BitKeeper. It's the license. Simple, we can all coexist happily,
and profit from each other's endeavors, but our little commons here should not
be carrying Bitkeeper ads.

> That's two questions, just answer those, nothing but those.

<counts question marks> Oh right, one missing. Well I answered both
questionish things anyway. Please let me know when you're done with your
cross examination and we can return to my question to you about the URL.

--
Daniel