1 |
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 7:52 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Some argue that this is enabling proprietary software, but even if so |
6 |
> > we're not breaking any promises. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Any proprietary distfiles referred to by ebuilds are irrelevant for this |
9 |
> discussion. We don't host that code on github. |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
You missed my point. |
13 |
|
14 |
We aren't hosting any proprietary software on github if we use github |
15 |
to store our FOSS repositories either. |
16 |
|
17 |
My point is that we support the use of proprietary software by |
18 |
providing 100% FOSS ebuilds in our official repositories that assist |
19 |
users in installing proprietary software. Some purists object to |
20 |
this. IMO this is a similar basis for objection as the objection to |
21 |
using github because of copilot. |
22 |
|
23 |
From a principle matter I can see why some object, just as some object |
24 |
to having a FOSS ebuild in our repo for installing a non-FOSS software |
25 |
application. |
26 |
|
27 |
However, from a practical standpoint, I think the absence of an ebuild |
28 |
or an inability to submit work on github are more likely to result in |
29 |
people avoiding using Gentoo than people avoiding the use of github or |
30 |
their proprietary software. |
31 |
|
32 |
So this is a pragmatics vs principles question. And of course letting |
33 |
people decide for themselves is also a principle. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Rich |