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 38871138A1A for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CEDCE091C; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:47:20 +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 B8B77E0880 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (dreamatorium.badexample.net [89.31.57.5]) (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 322AB340861 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54E4DE30.2010205@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:47:12 +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> <54E4D25A.70708@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0f18e1ac-b4c2-4480-a454-d601fca03c5f X-Archives-Hash: a373ebbfc15658e71841dabaa29037f7 Matt Turner: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:56 AM, hasufell wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, fine, it is. I don't think you're making an interesting point. > My point is that the team violated the social contract. >> 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. > > There's a serious security problem if they were to release the scripts > (passwords and all) right this second. > This statement makes me wonder if you really understand opensource (or even free software). Maybe the recruitment quizzes need to be fixed in this regard. > There's a lack of man power and that's completely sufficient to > explain why these things haven't happened. > Definitely not.