Documentation glitch in 2.4

2001-04-09 Thread Bill Davidsen
The Config help for kernel automount indicates that the pointer to user code is in the Documentation/Changes file for autofs. As far as I can tell that isn't the case. Since search engines seem to be better at finding the BSD and 2.2 software, it would be nice if the information was restored with

Documentation glitch in 2.4

2001-04-09 Thread Bill Davidsen
The Config help for kernel automount indicates that the pointer to user code is in the Documentation/Changes file for autofs. As far as I can tell that isn't the case. Since search engines seem to be better at finding the BSD and 2.2 software, it would be nice if the information was restored with

Re: Documentation glitch.

2000-10-14 Thread Mike A. Harris
ype: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Subject: Re: Documentation glitch. > >On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > This should be worded correctly as "GNU General Public >> > License" to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. There is no such

Re: Documentation glitch.

2000-10-14 Thread Tim Waugh
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > This should be worded correctly as "GNU General Public > > License" to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. There is no such > > thing as the "GNU public license" and newcomers may be confused. > > Good point. Will fix There's

Re: Documentation glitch.

2000-10-14 Thread Alan Cox
> This should be worded correctly as "GNU General Public > License" to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. There is no such > thing as the "GNU public license" and newcomers may be confused. Good point. Will fix - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the

Re: Documentation glitch.

2000-10-14 Thread Tim Waugh
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: This should be worded correctly as "GNU General Public License" to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. There is no such thing as the "GNU public license" and newcomers may be confused. Good point. Will fix There's _tonnes_ of

Re: Documentation glitch.

2000-10-14 Thread Mike A. Harris
: Documentation glitch. On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: This should be worded correctly as "GNU General Public License" to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. There is no such thing as the "GNU public license" and newcomers may be confused. Good poin

Documentation glitch.

2000-10-13 Thread Mike A. Harris
>From the file Documentation/SubmittingDrivers What Criteria Determine Acceptance -- Licensing: The code must be released to us under the GNU public license. We don't insist on any kind of exclusively GPL licensing, and if you

Documentation glitch.

2000-10-13 Thread Mike A. Harris
From the file Documentation/SubmittingDrivers What Criteria Determine Acceptance -- Licensing: The code must be released to us under the GNU public license. We don't insist on any kind of exclusively GPL licensing, and if you