Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-22T19:47:54Z

At 19:37 22/04/02, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>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.
>
>--Jonathan--

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,

Anton

--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/