"[Microsoft] GitHub has the right to suspend or terminate your access to all or any part of the Website at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time."
Also, can we make a point of always calling it Microsoft #GitHub from now on please? Thanks.
@rysiek coming from them, it probably would be renamed to just "Microsoft Git"
The best time to migrate is yesterday, the second one is today.
@rysiek The corporate terms of service seem much better. They will issue a notice if the terms of the agreement are violated and the first course of action is suspension, not termination.
Why do people still make their free software projects hostage to Microsoft GitHub™ anymore. 🤷♂️
@rysiek Devil's advocate here: that is their service and they are offering most of it for free. They can do whatever they want with it, including not offering it anymore. Thinking this should be different feels entitled. Don't you think?
@x_cli no, I very specifically don't, and the reason I don't think that is related to their scale and market position.
They are a de facto monopoly. The way I know this is through how often I hear something along the lines of "I would gladly host elsewhere but I need the discoverability" or some such.
With that kind of power comes responsibility. They put themselves in this position, they chose to make that their business model (compare to self-hostable GitLab).
It's squarely on them.
@x_cli another way to look at this is: GitHub is effectively public infrastructure. Kind of like a toll road.
A small toll road somewhere can perhaps have it's bespoke rules, because there are reasonable ways to go around it.
But a major toll highway has to be regulated to not discriminate against particular users of the road just because the toll road operator does not like them.
@x_cli and finally, the third way of looking at it is: if they can do whatever they want with their service, so can we!
For example, GitHub clearly thinks that the "fork commits visible in upstream repo" bug is not an issue. So surely it's not an issue that youtube-dl is now effectively clone'able from GitHub's own DMCA repo, right?
This is a very adversarial view of things, and it's kind of a war of attrition situation, but I'm going to bet that GitHub is not going to win that particular war.
@rysiek I understand your point of view and how it makes sense for you. I personnaly think that private company products cannot be considered public infrastructure (unless they are specifically contracted to operate a service that is already a public infrastructure). But I am ok to disagree with you on this 😉
@qrsbrwn @rysiek I participated in creating free to play games. I can very much assure you that we bought players (thru ads and infrastructure costs) and got ROI from paying players that supported their acquisition and exploitation costs, as well as those of the freeloaders. Freeloaders were just a statistical inconvenience because we knew that X% of them would never be converted. Their mere presence was more of an inconvenience than a source of revenue.
@qrsbrwn @rysiek The users are divided into three categories: the paying ones, those that may be converted with an additional effort (that you may or may not be willing to convert depending on the expected ROI), and the freeloaders. Freeloaders are only there as a form of advertisement (word-to-mouth marketing) that the company is willing to pay for. The company invests on the freeloaderd. The freeloaders do NOT pay the company by just being there and using the service.
@qrsbrwn @rysiek I agree that the free user is part of a transaction ads<->access, where access does cost something to the platform, while advertising is done freely and possibly passively by the user. I disagree with your original statement that the free users pay the platform by using it. (except, of course, if we disagree on what "paying" means and if your definition is "participating in a trade")
@reto comparing GitHub to Mastodon is not really going to work, because GitHub is not federated. You can't move your account elsewhere and yet still have access to basically the whole functionality of GitHub. You totally can on Mastodon.
If my Mastodon instance admin is a prick, I can move elsewhere (and if I'm the prick and thousands of instances ban me, that's useful feedback I should consider deeply).
If GitHub blocks my repo, there is literally no way do a move like that.
@reto and I am not sure about how lawful that "legal order" was in the first place. One would expect a company like GitHub, a company that *at least on the face of it* pretends to care about developers, to *push back*.
They did not, in the least. They did not even give #youtubedl a chance to respond! This is corporate dickery of the highest level.
Finally, and I can't believe I have to say this here, "just following orders" is not an end-all argument. Not even close.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!