Remember kids:

"[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 from now on please? Thanks.


I believe Discord still has copy to the same effect in their own Terms.

When the ToS tells you how a company operates, believe them (and not shills like Legal Eagle who handwave at arbitration clauses)

@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. 🤷‍♂️

@njoseph_1 oh this is good:

"Open source code hosting" -> "open source code hostage".

@rysiek @njoseph_1 not surprised in the least as this is the company that twice refused to back down from an ICE contract

@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 😉

@rysiek @x_cli This is also an argument for why Facebook and Twitter should stop censoring people.

@x_cli @rysiek They shouldn't be able to hold your work as hostage or even worse destroy it. You should have the right to pack your bags before you leave it.....

@shellkr @rysiek I mean, cloud storage does not mean your data is secure, nor there is backup. It would not be the first time I see data loss in the cloud. If the cloud loses accidentally or deliberately your data and you have no copy of it, that is kinda on you, I think 🙂

@x_cli @rysiek Would you use the same argument for someone being hit by ransomeware?

If not, what makes GitHub different with their current policy. In other words do you mean GitHub is a ransomeware? 😉

@shellkr @rysiek The argument is the same for ransomware. However saying "Github may cause data loss, ransomwares cause data loss, hence Github is a ransomware" is a sophism 😉 Nice try 😚

Thinking it is free seems shortsighted. The "payment" they get from the free customers is market penetration.
So yeah, you are paying by using free services.


@qrsbrwn @rysiek You are effectively not paying a copper. They create value from something you gave them. And this is not even PI. I don't think this can qualify as paying service in any juridiction whatsoever.

Where exactly do you think jurisdiction comes into this?
Also, do you mean to say that paying with money is the only way of paying?
Your view seems a bit shallow here, I think you should take a wee bit of time and think it over.


@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 So said differently, if you think that your mere presence on a service is valuable, you seriously need to have your head deflated a bit.

Yet again with the shallow view. Do you think the paying players would exist without the nonpaying ones?
You also seem to mix necessary and important.


@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.

Yes, the freeloaders are giving you advertising. Just like you said. That is a form of payment.
No matter how much I have enjoyed hearing yet again about "free to play" games, I don't feel we're getting anywhere.

@qrsbrwn @rysiek The key problem is that you think freeloaders give the platform free advertising, while I say the platform buys this advertising by letting freeloaders use their platform at their expense. I don't think we can reconcile these views, indeed.

Actually you seem to not really see what I'm saying.
I'm saying those who use the free tier is part in a transaction where game access is traded for advertising.
This is something you said yourself earlier (not in those exact words though).
It seem your disdain for those you call "freeloaders" clouds your view.


@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")

The users in a free to use service or free to play game are part of a trade that isn't as simple as "I give you coin you give me pig", we both agree that a transaction takes place.
We seem to disagree over whether what to free users are giving has value though.
If you stripped all non paying users from GitHub they would be a very small site that would quickly fade into oblivion.
They make their money by selling additional services and support to a minority that can be converted to paying customers.
The main argument to use GitHub for a paying customer is "that's what everyone is used to" so clearly their business model doesn't work without the free users.


@rysiek I was wondering if there maybe is some #google owned git plattform where #youtubedl can be hosted instead. 🤔 😉

@zem @rysiek There's which receives funding by Google and is hosted at Google Cloud.

i am not sure if a company receiving funding is enough to have google host the software they want to get rid off on their own. 😋

@rysiek which is standard behavior for any webservice... heck if you are being a dick on they'll terminate your account as well without much fuss and refuse service to you.

Github complied with a goddamn legal order for fucks sake... not their fault that the system is messed up in the US

@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 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.

@rysiek @reto if a million instances ban you (assuming there are at least a million instances on the Fedi) that still wouldn't necessarily make you a prick. A million admins can be wrong y'know
@rysiek @reto no it isn't. Truth, even subjective truth, is not a popularity contest.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

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!