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

[Matt Turner]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:47 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
> Matt Turner:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:56 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
>>> Dean Stephens:
>>>> On 02/15/15 22:26, hasufell wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> Your prose might benefit from labeling when you are using hyperbole,
>>>> otherwise when you make factually inaccurate claims it might seem as
>>>> though you actually believe them.
>>>>
>>>> In case that was unclear: while those scripts might not be formally
>>>> published, they have been made available to people who are not on the
>>>> team. Unless, that is, you define "the team" as anyone who has seen the
>>>> scripts; in which case you would be trivially correct by definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying you only share the code with your buddies? In that case,
>>> it is against our social contract as well.
>>
>> Yes, fine, it is. I don't think you're making an interesting point.
>>
>
> My point is that the team violated the social contract.

You don't get it. What's done is done. Suggesting that they simply
release everything as is this right this very second is irresponsible.

>>> Not only that, it is even a serious security problem since the developer
>>> community doesn't know how these things are packaged and neither do the
>>> users.
>>
>> There's a serious security problem if they were to release the scripts
>> (passwords and all) right this second.
>>
>
> This statement makes me wonder if you really understand opensource (or
> even free software).
>

If I didn't think there was a good chance you were running some of my
free software right now I'd probably be insulted.