GitHub has been recognized as harmful to the free software community at least as early as 2015, years before the Microsoft acquisition. See RMS email on GitHub.
GitHub allows you to select any license (including a proprietary license) or no license at all. This does not mean that GitHub encourages one to select a free software license or any license at all.
Anti-copyleft bias noted by Stallman and Sullivan is evident from the very beginning, from the founder Tom Preston-Werner himself. In 2011, Preston-Werner wrote that one should “open source (almost) everything” under a permissive license, because the GPL is “too dogmatic,” but keep “anything that represents business value” proprietary.
You gotta change the origin on every deployment you have. Update environment vars, reconfigure tools. You have to port all your PRs over somehow. Your issues. Your documentation. All the access keys. Etc.
Yeah, github is currently the big cheese. But other forges are still out there and are being used. And since git is an open format, the infrastructure is (a bit) more resilient towards enshittyfication.
True but GitHub wasn’t always Microsoft and at least in my experience moving between git providers is a pain
GitHub has been recognized as harmful to the free software community at least as early as 2015, years before the Microsoft acquisition. See RMS email on GitHub.
There is more than enough freedom in GitHub to set a license as you see fit. Stallman is being obtuse.
GitHub allows you to select any license (including a proprietary license) or no license at all. This does not mean that GitHub encourages one to select a free software license or any license at all.
In 2014, John Sullivan, then Executive Director of FSF, also asserted that GitHub’s choosealicense.com was anti-copyleft.
Anti-copyleft bias noted by Stallman and Sullivan is evident from the very beginning, from the founder Tom Preston-Werner himself. In 2011, Preston-Werner wrote that one should “open source (almost) everything” under a permissive license, because the GPL is “too dogmatic,” but keep “anything that represents business value” proprietary.
How is it a pain? You just change the origin on your existing project, and new projects you just use the new one to start with.
The pain is with the migration of a ci/cd template to another
You gotta change the origin on every deployment you have. Update environment vars, reconfigure tools. You have to port all your PRs over somehow. Your issues. Your documentation. All the access keys. Etc.
With Gitlab embracing activitypub, at least the issues can bei easily migrated now/soon.
Are they embracing activity pub? I read it is just one guy in the community working in it.
And the vast majority of users are on GitHub, looking for code on there. Having activity pub on other forges will not change that big time:-(
Ony saw this vid about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v68NFdZIMKI
Yeah, github is currently the big cheese. But other forges are still out there and are being used. And since git is an open format, the infrastructure is (a bit) more resilient towards enshittyfication.
Oh, the repository are easy to move.
The bug reports, PRs, wikis, CI/CD are stuck in github though. There is a huge lock in.