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 911D3138A1A for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A76C4E0903; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:05:52 +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 3ABA5E08AC for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qa0-f47.google.com (mail-qa0-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 100BE340717 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:05:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id v10so1995990qac.6 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:05:49 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.232.149 with SMTP id d143mr2556279qhc.81.1424282749210; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:05:49 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.229.168.4 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:05:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54E4D25A.70708@gentoo.org> References: <201502142148.30540.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <54E007A4.5050504@gentoo.org> <54E16381.8020409@gentoo.org> <54E411BA.4090502@gentoo.org> <54E4D25A.70708@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:05:28 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo, GitHub, and the Social Contract To: Gentoo project list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: b418f0a6-e6be-4ed3-a548-c11244aa647b X-Archives-Hash: 7428dc5d5f91a4c362314ddf2396de49 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. > 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. There's a lack of man power and that's completely sufficient to explain why these things haven't happened.