| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> eudev is a Gentoo project is not Gentoo. Same could be said for OpenRC. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
OpenRC isn't a Gentoo project, at least, it wasn't in the past. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The social contract defines Gentoo as a collection of free knowledge, |
| 10 |
which includes "free software contributed by various developers to the |
| 11 |
Gentoo Project." The social contract is meaningless if it doesn't |
| 12 |
apply to Gentoo projects. Gentoo projects cover all the arch teams, |
| 13 |
portage, and all of our documentation. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Projects are just how we organize the administration of Gentoo. They |
| 16 |
aren't something distinct from Gentoo. When you work on a Gentoo |
| 17 |
project, you work on Gentoo. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I guess you misunderstood what is Gentoo and what is a Gentoo Project. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Enlighten us, what is Gentoo, if nothing in any Gentoo project is Gentoo? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What exactly do you think that section of the Social Contract actually |
| 25 |
covers? Or is it a pretty document we stick on our website but ignore |
| 26 |
when it is somehow inconvenient? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As I said, I'm fine with making exceptions if it makes sense and |
| 29 |
furthers the overall mission of Gentoo. However, we shouldn't just |
| 30 |
ignore the social contract without any kind of consideration at all. |
| 31 |
If the community doesn't like the social contract we could of course |
| 32 |
consider amending it as well. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Gentoo isn't GitHub. When people donate money to Gentoo they're not |
| 35 |
donating so that a club of elite coders can use the infrastructure to |
| 36 |
host just anything that suits their fancy. The reason that we let any |
| 37 |
Gentoo developer just start a project is because it helps promote |
| 38 |
innovation and cuts through bureaucracy. That doesn't mean that |
| 39 |
Gentoo holds no interest in the work that is done under its name. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I think that Duncan pointed out a great reason to use LGPL, and using |
| 42 |
a license that lets us better collaborate with the overall FOSS |
| 43 |
community is something I think is well-aligned with Gentoo's mission |
| 44 |
(We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community). However, if we |
| 45 |
use LGPL it should because of something like this, and not simply be |
| 46 |
because those working on the project picked it. If for whatever |
| 47 |
reason the fork diverges to a point where we aren't giving back in the |
| 48 |
form of patches to upstream then I'd argue that it would make sense to |
| 49 |
move back to the GPL (something trivially done with or without |
| 50 |
copyright assignment due to the nature of the LGPL). |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Rich |
Archives