Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo, GitHub, and the Social Contract

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:31:48 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:23:48 +0100
>> Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > On 14/02/15 23:13, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > > That's how Git works.
>> >
>> > Consider contributors (Gentoo developers or not) that want to submit
>> > patches to a project. They should have access to the primary
>> > repository (git or not), and be able to contribute without being
>> > forced to use proprietary software. This is incredibly easy to
>> > facilitate, so I don't expect us to have a problem related to github
>> > and our social mission here.
>>
>> What if their ISP runs proprietary software to manage its network? Will
>> Gentoo accept patches by pigeon? (Obviously the postal service can't be
>> relied upon to not use proprietary software.)
>
> One should not confuse transparent data transmission mediator and
> active data management engine required to create, submit or
> apply changes.
>

I think we're going a bit too far down the rabbit hole.

Somebody asked in IRC whether we run linuxbios on our servers.  Even
if we did, I'm sure the CPU schematics aren't published, or the
blueprints for the power plant that runs the datacenter.

Until the entire world runs on FOSS, I think we can live with Gentoo
simply trying to adhere to the social contract as best it can.  We
don't have to run the tinderbox on a CPU whose specs date to the 80s
since that was the only one we could find with published schematics.

I'm not aware of any aspect of Gentoo that necessitates the use of
proprietary software to contribute to, at least not anything a
contributor would have to pay for / etc.  If somebody spots something
and can offer a reasonable alternative, I'm sure it will be looked
into.  I think everybody around here is fairly dedicated to FOSS.
That said, Gentoo has always been a bit pragmatic - we allow non-free
stuff into the portage tree, for example (heck, even paid proprietary
software where you need the original CD to use the ebuild).  But, you
can always set your ACCEPT_LICENSE strictly and never accidentally
install it, and that won't hold you back from contributing at all.

Honestly, I'm not really seeing a lot of division here - just arguing
over definitions/etc.

-- 
Rich