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 Ok. But “we have a unique, long-term vision to be independent” does not translate into a justification for saying “it’s incredibly short-sighted” to use github. Perhaps it is incompatible with the org’s values (and I think the values should be reconsidered, but that’s a separate argument). Being antithetical to ASF’s principles doesn’t support a statement that using github is “short-sighted”.
@paco I don't think many people in the ASF have ethical issues with this (many promote a proprietary + free software co-existence model). Rather, it is a more practical concern. They have built a long-term home for projects who share their vision, licence, and community process. This home is supposed to last "forever". Some ASF members attempt to plan ahead for an ASF in 50 years from now. I realize that "short-sighted" may sound harsh if we apply a much smaller time scale.
@paco It boils down to controlling your infrastructure, and yes that is naturally not something every project wants to do.
Hosting sites such as sourceforge and github are a good quick solution but their lifetime is determined by market forces.
The ASF provides long-term hosting on a non-profit basis but there is also a catch: The ASF will own the project. Its board has the power to exclude developers and even replace the entire developer base if deemed necessary for the project's survival.
@paco This same catch applies in other self-hosted communities: BSD projects for example also run their own infra and each has a unique process for giving a "key to the house" to a developer and for revoking such access. And so does the Linux kernel.
I think the question which kicked this thread off raises a valid concern: When hosting sites go down they can throw projects into temporary or permanent disarray. That's a huge responsibility if the site hosts a large chunk of the FOSS community.
@paco Of course, in practice projects can migrate away before business is closed for good. But it is disruptive. The last time mass migration occurred was when Google Code was shut down, and I don't remember anyone cheering.