Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Anton Altaparmakov]

At 19:37 22/04/02, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and endorsement 
>of a product with a license which to many developers violates the spirit 
>of open source software.  This is not to say that BK is not an effective 
>product, nor that the document in question is useful for people who choose 
>the tool, but to me it seems comparable to including a closed source 
>binary module in the kernel distribution. Moving the document to the BK 
>website would be nicer, and would certainly assauge bad feelings regarding 
>such an integral implicit endorsement of a tool.
>
>--Jonathan--

I hereby publically endorse the use of bitkeeper. I think it's a great tool 
and I think anyone who is not using it is missing out. Anyone who asks me 
what a good SCM to use is will hear "bitkeeper" from me. And I shall not 
change my mind until a better or at least as good tool becomes available.

Taking out the document only because it describes a non-free tool is 
ridiculous. I don't object to the removal per se. I could live with that. I 
object to the REASONS for removal.

And I am prepared to speak for that, in case you hadn't noticed. (-;

How about that?

Best regards,

Anton