Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T17:58:36Z

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