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 6BCF9138A1A for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E1B0E0904; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:56:53 +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 8EE11E0903 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:56:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (cs-tor.bu.edu [204.8.156.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F26AB340042 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54E4D25A.70708@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:56:42 +0000 From: hasufell 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> <54E411BA.4090502@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <54E411BA.4090502@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: def5a6b6-0064-4a48-be41-0b368770c8ea X-Archives-Hash: 8779471a8af59a6e2d1be68c93ea8293 Dean Stephens: > 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. > Are you saying you only share the code with your buddies? In that case, it is against our social contract as well. Not only that, it is even a serious security problem since the developer community doesn't know how these things are packaged and neither do the users.