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 CB421138A1A for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 069D0E07F9; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:14:58 +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 7E882E07E2 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-74-75-188-108.maine.res.rr.com [74.75.188.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EEAA34087E for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54E411BA.4090502@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:14:50 -0500 From: Dean Stephens User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo, GitHub, and the Social Contract References: <201502142148.30540.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <54E007A4.5050504@gentoo.org> <54E16381.8020409@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <54E16381.8020409@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: dda1edf2-57d4-4852-b682-c0ecc6b37b3e X-Archives-Hash: 996aa69d1a9748b0d3c67ba6a432d9e0 On 02/15/15 22:26, hasufell wrote: > Scripts no one can read except the team (even after being asked to > publish them) is by definition propriety software. It was used to > develop and package emul-linux-x86-* packages until this very day. > Your prose might benefit from labeling when you are using hyperbole, otherwise when you make factually inaccurate claims it might seem as though you actually believe them. In case that was unclear: while those scripts might not be formally published, they have been made available to people who are not on the team. Unless, that is, you define "the team" as anyone who has seen the scripts; in which case you would be trivially correct by definition. In short: less bathos, please.