On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all > packages from the tree that have their upstream on github? >
Considering that we allow even outright proprietary software in portage which isn't distributed at all (copy file from CD to distfiles), we're obviously not going to be concerned about upstreams on github. Gentoo's social contract is GENTOO'S social contract. It governs what we do, and it doesn't say that we don't accept proprietary software. It says that we won't DEPEND on proprietary software for our operations or for anything essential to using Gentoo. As I already said - I think Github is a gray area. I'd like to see us working on an internal workflow tool that is friendly to outsiders like Gerrit or whatever. I'd see Github as a useful alternative, or as an interim solution, but I'd really hate to establish it as the long-term repository for something that is part of Gentoo without actively pursuing plans to move it to an FOSS platform. That's just my personal opinion though - others really don't want to touch it at all, and I can't fault them too much since it is contrary to our social contract. I'm a pragmatist, but I am charged with helping to uphold the social contract as a Trustee, and right now there is no official FOSS long-term solution. On the list of threats to the org though, I think that getting our main repository onto git in the first place is a higher priority than adopting tools like Gerrit/Github/etc. Right now most of what is left on that project rests on infra, so I don't want to beat up on them over not wanting to take on Java/etc. Rich
