Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:25, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 
> > > Guess what else?  You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> > > making documents less available than they previously were.
> > 
> > So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
> > information as well?
> > You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
> 
> Two issues here:
> 1) Daniel was attempting a 'remove' operation, you are describing an
> 'add'.  The operations do the exact opposite in terms of information
> dissemination.

No I do not.  Read the post.  I suggested placing the documentation on
kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs.  This
documentation for a proprietary software product does not belong in the
Linux kernel tree itself.  It is nothing less than an advertisement.
Was it paid for?

(And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me.  However, it
is not me I'm worried about.  It is the other kernel developers who are
silently seething at this situation.  Yes they are, use your ears.)

-- 
Daniel