| 1 |
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:44 AM, C Bergström <cbergstrom@×××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> What I'm describing is not "gmail" - it's everything that gmail has |
| 4 |
>> and offers, but @gentoo.org domain. I'm using it right now in fact. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> You get the web interface, IMAP, POP, 2 token authentication (if you |
| 7 |
>> want to enabled it) and lots of other things. etc etc |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> How about the source code? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Do you have the source for github? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> It used to be free, but now google charges for it with an exception |
| 16 |
>> for non-profits. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The social contract isn't about free-of-cost. In fact, Gentoo pays |
| 19 |
> for a number of services (often below commercial rates, but not |
| 20 |
> everybody can afford to donate 100% of what we need). We've even paid |
| 21 |
> for a bug bounty on one occasion. The social contract is about |
| 22 |
> free-as-in-freedom. We don't depend on proprietary services as much |
| 23 |
> as possible. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> We even have debates over the use of github, since the pull request |
| 26 |
> side isn't really FOSS. It is tolerated mainly because we have FOSS |
| 27 |
> alternatives as well, and bugzilla is still the primary bug |
| 28 |
> tracker/etc. To the extent that github is just used as a hosting |
| 29 |
> provider for git it is completely compatible with the social contract, |
| 30 |
> and would be so even if we were paying for it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
There are "free" alternatives and this is the exact same thing as |
| 33 |
github. IMAP and POP are comparable to git as google hosted apps is |
| 34 |
comparable to github. There's a line between being passionate and |
| 35 |
ignoring a sensible good alternative. I can't say where to draw that |
| 36 |
line, but imho I hope pragmatic people will take a look instead of |
| 37 |
just dismissing it. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Oh and btw - the whole problem comes because people are forwarding to |
| 40 |
gmail. Is that open source? It's clear a large number of people |
| 41 |
already use and depend on the exact same service I'm suggesting. How |
| 42 |
on earth could those same people object... (I don't see the open |
| 43 |
source communit up in arms over yahoo mail and gmail..) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
/* I'm just trying to level the conversation in terms of "social |
| 46 |
contract" and what people generally find acceptable */ |
| 47 |
Do you own a phone that connects to this email? Android, iOS.. etc |
| 48 |
aren't "open source", but somehow we survive.. |
Archives