This is a bit depressing.
https://www.nerdmeritbadges.com/products/octocat
This underlying problem needs to become a priority. Either pressuring #github to go free software or getting free software to go elsewhere.
Github becoming synonymous with open source just muddies free software waters more.
Free Software needs free tools.
@satchmoz In the long term people will cry in disappointment when the company eventually tanks or gets bought and corrupted. But something else will replace it. Alternatives will be able to step in at the right moment.
Meanwhile, grown-up open source projects which have existed much longer mostly still run their own infrastructure, so it's _not_ going to brielfy take out absolutely everything.
@satchmoz BTW I am always amused when a new project arrives at the Apache Software Foundation and demands that their primary repository will be on Github and the ASF tells them "No, that would be incredibly short-sighted; you can only have a mirror there". This discussion repeats roughly every 6 months...
@stsp I don’t see what is “incredibly short-sighted”. It is inexpensive, reliable, and effective, no? What is the thing that these naïve people don’t get? If this is so obvious and these arguments are made so often, feel free to point me to some blog somewhere. I’ll read.
@paco The point is to stay independent. ASF projects do not host critical services outside of ASF infrastructure. This way the ASF can ensure long-term stability.
This is not specific to github and it applies to any critical services (of which version control is just one).
@deejoe I also think you need to define “proprietary code hosting”. I asked naively before (literally because I don’t know). What is “proprietary” about GitHub? Is there some licensed extension to the git protocol? Is there something they require of a project or an individual that is “proprietary”? I thought git was git, and they’re effectively a commercial, value-added git-as-a-service business. I’m open to being corrected.
But, to the extent anyone *only* uses github as *just* a git remote, you're right: There are only the usual worries one has about any generic host about capacity and availability, and on that count they're usually fine.
But "value added" is pretty much synonymous with "proprietary" and ushers in rent-seeking lock-in concerns.
After all, the Franklin Street statement about online services is 10 years old this year. The AGPL is older than that.
What we mean and where we all stand is not that hard to sort out to, as they say, one with ordinary skill in the art.
