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).

@stsp @paco

https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html

@stsp @paco

I realize that's going to draw fire from both sides since it's GNU.

Would be happy to see an extended critique of proprietary code hosting from, say, an OpenBSD perspective.

@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.

@paco

Can you fork it?

If no, it's proprietary.

@deejoe That’s an extraordinary extreme position. At some layer in the stack there will be “proprietary” software. That free OS runs on CPUs that run proprietary microcode. The network routers (my ISPs, if not mine) that connect the hosts to the net run a proprietary OS. Look at the OSI reference model. How many layers can one operate with zero proprietary software? Maybe layer 5 on up? Proprietary layer 7 code is bad, but we shrug at layers 1-4?

@paco

You've shifted the discussion.

You started with "define proprietary".

Now you're arguing *for* proprietary.

Which, you know, fine: You be you.

But let's just be clear the direction you've taken this.

@deejoe I asked for the definition because I didn't understand what was "proprietary". One pays to use their service. That's true. But that's neither here nor there for the definition, right? They don't make all the code available that they write/run in order to deliver the service one pays for. That seems to be the sticking point. The API that they support is open (right?), and they receive no rights to your IP if you host code there, right?