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 0C760138A1A for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 147F3E086F; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:19 +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 6E709E0851 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (mail-qg0-f44.google.com [209.85.192.44]) (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 13C5B34070F for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id j5so2655467qga.3 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:20:15 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.25.208 with SMTP id 74mr3289979qgt.58.1424287215303; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:20:15 -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 11:19:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54E4DE30.2010205@gentoo.org> References: <201502142148.30540.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <54E007A4.5050504@gentoo.org> <54E16381.8020409@gentoo.org> <54E411BA.4090502@gentoo.org> <54E4D25A.70708@gentoo.org> <54E4DE30.2010205@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:19:55 -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: 840c43aa-f486-424d-98d3-02c0db453128 X-Archives-Hash: bc30d480d862cc39aef61d6dc539cd8c On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:47 AM, hasufell wrote: > 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. You don't get it. What's done is done. Suggesting that they simply release everything as is this right this very second is irresponsible. >>> 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). > If I didn't think there was a good chance you were running some of my free software right now I'd probably be insulted.