Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik]

(Linus removed from CC)

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:06:05PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> > > He made his intention very clear, you are interpreting something in
> his
> > > action, that simply isn't there.
> >
> > How can one misinterpret the action of "<this> is my ideology.
> > this document offends me.  I remove it."?
> 
> If "ideology" means to state a different opinion, then I'm guilty too,
> I'm an ideologist and proud of it. Please get your terminology straight
> before you make such accusations.

I have my terminology straight.  Everyone have some amount of core
ideology, I imagine.  I was illustrating cause and effect, with the
above statement.

Ideology is a good thing.  If you believe in something, fight for it.

But... if you believe that all documents in the kernel source should
conform to a certain ideology, the WRONG way to go about fighting
that is to remove documents.  Why is it wrong?  You are trampling on
the rights of others.  One RIGHT way to fight would be to write an
alternate SCM that people can switch to -- eliminate the need for BK.

I may disagree with Daniel's action, but his viewpoint is more than
fair, and is shared by others.  My point with all this censorship /
free speech stuff is -- don't let your viewpoint cause others' rights
to be trampled.

> > If you want to be really semantic, Daniel's patch was an attempt to
> > censor, not censorship itself.  But when it's a GPL'd document that
> > I wrote, I'll treat them equally.
> 
> One doesn't "attempt to censor" by publicly announcing it. Get real,
> this is getting ridiculous.

Read up on censorship.  It doesn't have to be private to be censorship.
In fact, it usually isn't.

Fact: GPL'd BK document contains speech Daniel doesn't like
Fact: Daniel tried to remove doc because he dislikes its contents

Interpret the facts however you wish.

> > > But there isn't anything like that, so Joe Hacker
> > > has to think he should use bk as SCM to get his patch into the kernel,
> > > because Linus is using it.
> >
> > If Linus and others repeatedly claim this is untrue, and repeatedly
> > prove this by taking GNU patches, your statement is utter fantasy.
> 
> Again, I was more talking about SCM systems here. I don't care, what
> tools you are using, but we should avoid giving the impression, that
> Joe Hacker should use bk, because Linus is using it.

I agree. (shocked? :))

Nobody should feel forced or coerced into using BK, and we should
actively combat this notion.

I wonder if we can agree, as well, that no one should feel forced or
coerced into _not_ using BK, also.  Do you agree?

Freedom of choice is also an important freedom.  We, the BK fans, should
actively combat the notion of being forced to use BK.  OTOH, the anti-BK
crowd should IMO actively combat the notion of being forced _not_ to use
BK.  Daniel used the term "BitKeeper mafia" -- let's work together as a
community to ensure there is never an "anti-BitKeeper mafia" also...

> You and Linus may only care about hacking for fun, but other people also
> care about the freedom to hack. Recent developments in the US and Europe
> should have made clear that this is necessary. Nobody wants to make Larry
> the bad guy here, but is on the other hand a little respect really too
> much to ask for, when people critize the usage of bk, that they not
> automatically get branded as bunch of fanatics with some strange
> "ideology"? 

I hold up Andrew Morton and Andi Kleen as two shining examples of people
who appear to disagree with BK, but are willing to patiently point out
problems.  Andrew Morton's message in the middle of this thread was
wonderful, to-the-point, and rings true to me.  I was very happy that he
posted it.

But to be honest, I _do_ feel that Daniel was being a fanatic.
That's an opinion, and I'm sure some people disagree.

Free speech is all about letting someone else that you _disagree_ with
air their opinion.  Daniel's patch was not about that principle at all.

I will not cast aspersions on anyone else, since I only have Daniel's
actions to judge.

> Could we at least add something like below as a compromise (it's only a
> suggestion and not an attempt to brainwash or something like that). It's
> not enough to assume that people know that they have a choice, we have to
> tell them that and besides of some statements on the LKML, I can't find it
> officially documented anywhere:

I am perfectly fine with adding this paragraph to the BK doc, and
will save your email here with the intention of doing so.  Your doc is
fair and I did not think for one second it was an attempt to brainwash.

Thank you,

	Jeff