Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:19:23PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> > Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
> > Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology.  And he attempted to
> > restrict the dissemination of that speech.  What is the definition
> > of censorship again?
> 
> Maybe I was to subtle, but your censorship argument is simply bullshit.
> A link to the information is completely sufficient.

What was Daniel's action?  Remove the text.  Nothing else.  Sure, he
suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them?  No.
He just implied that people need to step up and do this work for him.

Daniel attempted to remove speech he disgreed with from wide
distribution -- on distro CDs, kernel.org mirrors, etc.  I am hoping
it is plainly obvious that removing a doc from one of the mostly
widely distributed open source projects reduces the doc's distribution
dramatically.  _That_ is a form of censorship, just like buying out
printing presses, to silence them, in the old days.  It's still
around... just progressively harder to obtain.

> The only question
> is, whether the information is relevant for kernel development and most
> of it is only bk documentation.

And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
document for BK users.  Very relevant to kernel devel.  This relevance
was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.

After the info had been separately requested multiple times, it
got turned into a document -- the BK version of SubmittingPatches.
After that doc was requested multiple times, it went to the same
place where SubmittingPatches is stored.

	Jeff