Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Monday 22 April 2002 19:03, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Let us separate that fact from the notion that it is a BK
> advertisement, and discuss that part, since that seems to be the
> important issue.  As the author of the doc, I state the doc was
> not written as an advertisement, and was not paid for, directly
> or indirectly.
> 
> That said, it certainly can been seen as an advertisement.

OK, we've established that then.

> I like BK, and like to encourage others to use it.
> 
> So let us term the BK doc as, "not intended as an advertisement,
> but can easily be considered such."  I hope we agree so far?  :)
> 
> Now that we have that...
> 
> Q. What is the justification for removing an admittedly-useful
>    advertisement?

  1) It would be equally as useful as a URL
  2) It would not consume download bandwidth
  3) It would show some sensitivity to the concerns of those who are
     uncomfortable with the license.

> There is no dispute that the doc is useful, only dispute with certain
> beliefs.  Disagreement is fine... encouraged, even.  But that's a
> poor justification to remove the doc from the tree.
> 
> I hear your point, I really do.  I just feel very strongly that
> removing the BK docs from the tree is the worst way to go about
> supporting this point of view.

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.)

-- 
Daniel