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 donβt see what is βincredibly short-sightedβ. It is inexpensive, reliable, and effective, no? What is the thing that these naΓ―ve people donβt get? If this is so obvious and these arguments are made so often, feel free to point me to some blog somewhere. Iβll 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 βproprietary code hostingβ. I asked naively before (literally because I donβt know). What is βproprietaryβ about GitHub? Is there some licensed extension to the git protocol? Is there something they require of a project or an individual that is βproprietaryβ? I thought git was git, and theyβre effectively a commercial, value-added git-as-a-service business. Iβm 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.
@deejoe If I am an open source project that has money (through endowment, patreon, whatever) can I pay a vendor for services (github, aws, rackspace)? Or is there really some expectation that I screen all my vendors for similar ideological purity? When someone says i canβt pay GitHub to host my code for ideological reasons, I wonder βhow could my project ever scale up?β
Consider insect parts in food: Insects are a part of some food cultures. The broader class of arthropods are even more commonly eaten (eg, prawns).
And yet, for non-insect foods, there are often permissible limits on how much insect contamination is permissible that has, in part, to do with limits of detection, how much harm their presence poses, etc.
I'm saying, I don't want cockroaches in my peanut butter. You're saying you like peanut butter, peanut butter contains some cockroach in it, so eating insects is OK.
Which, you know, again, I'm somewhat fine with. Except under pretty narrow circumstances I try not to tell people what to do. But by the same token, I want to be clear what is what, so I can also be clear in where we all stand, and in trying to get what I want.
@deejoe I do think the word "ideology" fits just fine. It's not perjorative. That "ethical repositories" link you sent a couple days ago talks about "compatibility with copyleft ...philosophy". That is absolutely an ideological criteria. Ideological doesn't imply "mindless" or "bigoted" or something bad. It means driven by a set of principles, and that's exactly what this whole definition of "proprietary" is about. My own principles are different and absolutely open to scrutiny.
OK, you're doubling down on the word.
If you're willing to apply the term "ideology" to your own perspectives, then fine. If not, we might be done.
@deejoe It must be coming off wrong. When I'm saying "ideological" maybe you're hearing something negative implied like "narrowminded" or "blindly dogmatic" or something. It's not meant that way. These open source criteria are all guided by a philosophical principle. And they're making pragmatic decisions about what is desirable/undesirable based on alignment with those philosophies. I used "ideological" as a shorthand for "principled and pragmatic" not for "mindlessly bigoted".
as before, 'If you're willing to apply the term "ideology" to your own perspectives, then fine.'
@deejoe Absolutely. Of course. I'm principled and pragmatic as well. I have my own ideology based on the various principles that are important to me. I totally do NOT mean the way you phrased it that my ideology is "common sense" that's not open to interrogation, but your "ideology" is some crazy shit that should be discussed. The reason I engaged in the conversation is because I wonder if I'm wrong. I figure I'm probably making decisions off assumptions I can't support.
fair enough
@paco
Calling this stance "ideological purity" isn't quite on.
An ideology is a world view. We all have them. But using the term "ideology" to describe someone else's world view is a form of othering, trying to put one's own world view in a privileged, unexaminable position.
In other words, *you* have an 'ideology' but *I* just have common sense.