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

[hasufell]

Rich Freeman:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:42 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
>> Andreas K. Huettel:
>>>
>>> * The Gentoo Social Contract states [1]:
>>> "Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software or metadata unless it
>>> conforms to the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public
>>> License, the Creative Commons - Attribution/Share Alike or some other license
>>> approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI)."
>>>
>>
>> This has already been violated numerous times, including the development
>> of emul-linux-x86-* packages.
>>
>
> A principle being violated in the past isn't a good reason to simply
> abandon it.  Principles like this one are always going to be hard to
> hit 100%, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do the best we can.
>
> That said, I don't really see how the 32-bit packages violate this.
> If they happen to include non-FOSS that really isn't GENTOO depending
> on them.  I don't think anything essential in Gentoo depends on any
> non-FOSS components of any packages in the tree.  Having non-stuff in
> the tree isn't the same as depending on them.  Neither is having a
> random package that depends on a non-free package - we're talking
> about GENTOO depending on something, not a random package in the tree.
>
> If some project wanted to ONLY accept contributions via pull requests
> on github, then I could start seeing some concern.
>

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.

No one cared, at any time. I just find this a bit confusing, because of
the sudden bikeshed about github which IS already widely used in gentoo
(whether everyone likes it or not).

Git is distributed, so I do not see a single reason to SOLELY depend on
github. I'm not sure why people confuse this. If we don't, then ~95% of
this discussion becomes obsolete.