| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:55:41 +0100 Alexey Lapitsky wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Mart, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I agree with every sentence from your email. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Rich made a great example about the rabbit hole. I don't think we |
| 7 |
> should blindly follow the social contract. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Just want to add that Github has pushed forward so many open source |
| 10 |
> projects that we must ask ourselves a different question: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Is Gentoo willing to say "no" to the new users, developers and the |
| 13 |
> speed of development just because Github is not FOSS? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Is Gentoo willing to say "no" to the software freedom and its own |
| 16 |
social obligations in order to make contributions easier in the |
| 17 |
simplest way possible? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There is a fine line here: if github will turn to a main |
| 20 |
development platform for Gentoo — this is way too dangerous from |
| 21 |
both philosophical and practical ways. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
What if github will change its policy at any random moment, e.g. |
| 24 |
will kick projects or deny whole countries to contribute? What if |
| 25 |
they will require payment for services at some time? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Github itself is uncontrolled by Gentoo community, this rises |
| 28 |
security concerns as well. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> As Rich said, Gentoo has always been a bit pragmatic. I think it |
| 31 |
> should be an easy question for any pragmatic team. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
P.S. And please, don't top-post. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives