From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E891013888F for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:14:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1732421C03C; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:14:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C6C921C003 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:14:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [91.246.93.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bircoph) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02D4533BF11 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 02:14:18 +0300 From: Andrew Savchenko To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for Agenda Items -- Council Meeting 2015-10-11 Message-Id: <20151018021418.7a9d9c40622693eb929837b0@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1904237.nU16iSOlTl@kailua> <20150930204510.7e0bd29f.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20151008154237.c5b94b546444d7204ab91a98@gentoo.org> <56166864.2050204@gentoo.org> <9C591B75-DE0D-4AB6-8A6E-89FA178513BF@gentoo.org> <5616855D.8000106@gentoo.org> <20151009042132.662d0925458f8804abcee442@gentoo.org> <56179764.7070902@gentoo.org> <56179BE3.1000708@gentoo.org> <56179DE5.40305@gentoo.org> <5617A264.1010900@gentoo.org> <5617A397.3020400@gentoo.org> <5617AB77.4050302@gentoo.org> <5617AFD3.2040503@gentoo.org> <20151010215652.2a17b74b37de566dadab7b4f@gentoo.org> <20151010195901.00e5359f@googlemail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.3 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA512"; boundary="Signature=_Sun__18_Oct_2015_02_14_18_+0300_/QytBeWa36=+NopJ" X-Archives-Salt: 8d5a1289-1f0a-4d38-a297-7550596266c1 X-Archives-Hash: 51c4470802366c74551deb5f24049b7a --Signature=_Sun__18_Oct_2015_02_14_18_+0300_/QytBeWa36=+NopJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:41:57 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:56:52 +0300 > > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >> 1) GitHub _was already blocked_ in several countries [1]. We are an > >> international community, thus we can't rely on such resource. > > > > And no doubt Gentoo will be blocked at some point, if it becomes > > popular enough and continues to include software which upsets people. >=20 > Of course, the whole point of the social contract is that if Gentoo is > ever "blocked" or taken over by a hostile interest, etc, then > everything of value that makes us what we are is already FOSS. >=20 > Ideally we should get to a state where all of infra (minus things like > credentials or personal info) is documented and trivial for anybody to > copy. That would both make it easier for others to contribute and > make it easy to roll your own Gentoo should that be useful. >=20 > We haven't really pushed for a copyright attribution solution, but > even there we were looking at something like the FSFe FLA which is > designed to prevent being held hostage by a hostile owner (maybe the > trustees lose their minds or somebody sues Gentoo, prevails, and is > awarded all our copyrights). >=20 > In any case, I think the arguments have been hashed out. FWIW I fully > support the social contract and the importance of building on FOSS. > At the same time, we should be pragmatic when somebody comes along > with a largely-free solution and nobody else is stepping up with a > completely-free alternative. I suspect we'll manage to find a > reasonable compromise. =20 FSF announced GNU ethical criteria for code repositories: https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-ethical-repo-criteria https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html We should take it into consideration as well. I really doubt that GitHub will be able to pass even C class check :) Such check are under way right now. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko --Signature=_Sun__18_Oct_2015_02_14_18_+0300_/QytBeWa36=+NopJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWItZKAAoJEPZTWjO6HuSNeGgQAK2QtjvWRW3kiWG98di4MwAv jJ21jBpecrDUQTH9qGm77wLcryjb+ZYy0b3/Yj/d+2zhxBOEjpUpZTP3hsa2xcLg /OWgnH+l2a9zlrD4RrGKTXoQVUgKnJphbPAZsI8MNSBgTMvT7Dn0pgMtvsy6bZmP dQbr4F30t0iZ8T5Yjzw31OG06lrETP+NNq5e/2yYGol6XZF430Ylf7EePa0IBBVn 7hn1K3FXkJWMaMDs1WpksUapHPxYf9IfXMnoeCqTCl5JAOvAY4/UI6b015X9f5Tu btIMhsG9pmevjKORAyjiZgHrcuwRQttjRBsdMiM3RBD2G5k381pdBJAas5nfrkiH E2hSXtgjeuXQ4JEmvMyMuf9JWt7BsX1a2R7k2+PQ8MdVqhsD7u21vf9d6uUSWp77 ipo9VsYb1OpZNppX2GiNTcUbFLj9blecaqN1Lks2qZ+nIYkzBx6NvuxaRYRzLLYF FmYq0WSLX6ra0hcfrhRgXFUwMv6k5I3BhTdCjFOHxVjArrRAobeHVhTuvW3jYMNj kWrETu3Lxe9VwoGRbjdys5TzPzN2OBofG3yF5aRYYoUJlFr9l827uaS6t0ARfL6m UG5G/sW+U+Ix0JWxclKSZCYbvCWqs/sDDHNh9/lJWqwUJ6p2PbS3unoXbqtO/HT/ s54qiCiDmUkiqR27PzJg =5zRH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sun__18_Oct_2015_02_14_18_+0300_/QytBeWa36=+NopJ--