71–80 of 126 posts
Can someone explain the issue with slopy licensing and what is RMS?
While GitHub encourages licensing and even help users with a dedicated menu for it they don't enforce it or help in making licensing decisions which in the eyes or RMS (Richard Matthew Stallman) is bad
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A handler now ? The linked article is classic RMS: pedantic, relentless, and reasoning so nuanced to the point of being indecipherable if not imperceptible to all but the few who have spent countless hours wrestling with RMS' ideas. If you assume RMS is smarter than you, or at least more analytically rigorous (like a computer)[1], then you'd be hard pressed to find anything RMS has said which isn't consistent with th…
The world's changed, man. He didn't. That's all there is to it.
Maybe it has done harm to GNU and the GPL, since they have become less relevant. But despite its problems, GitHub has been a huge net positive for free software. They considerably lowered the bar for making a project available. SourceForge acted as gatekeepers and rejected projects. With GitHub, anyone could start a project and no-one would look down on you and tell you that your project is not novel enough or whatev…
Did it? I remember starting two projects which made not much sense at all. I vaguely remember the process was automatic then. Has it changed with time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? I'm very confused. "coc" is a "Code of Conduct" document right? How is that you're opposed to CoC _in general_?
Because reasonable people already know how to behave and don't need a document to tell them. I've never seen a case where a coc improved software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without RMS most of the software you are currently using wouldn't work. He has orthodox manners and is an extremist for freedom but "terrible harm" is a lie.
I am sure it would work just fine.
GitHub probably did more good for the FOSS community than any other project I can think of. Before GitHub, it was so difficult to share code. Solutions available weren't anywhere close. I don't understand why he wants every little piece of software to be open sourced. GitHub was attractive to investors because it had closed source projects that have to pay in order to use it. I don't see how GitHub was going to succe…
GitHub mainly flipped the default view from "project description, forums, and downloads" to "code" which was the massive change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because reasonable people already know how to behave and don't need a document to tell them. I've never seen a case where a coc improved software.
And people "know" not to steal. Yet we need to have laws so we agree on rules and boundaries. You can think of it like a list of rules agreed on early, so the project leaders don't have to go through the arguments about what's accepted after someone crosses one person's boundaries, but not another's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously it's hyperbole - but a lot of people are definitely put off by coc, myself included. It's a wretched, insidious text sneaked in by very bad actors into mainstream open source repositories.
> It's a wretched, insidious text sneaked in by very bad actors into mainstream open source repositories. Replace text with code and think about how the supposed 'meritocracy' of open source deals with the problem? Isn't 'nobody is stopping you from forking it', 'submit a pull request', 'the community/bdfl has final say', not apply here as well? Or do the benefits of open collaboration stop at code?
> It's a wretched, insidious *code* sneaked in by very bad
> actors into mainstream open source repositories.
Isn't it the presumption that whatever gets absorbed / pulled in, reflects the consensus of the community involved and that the future of the project is determined by the sort of natural evolution ? ...the bazaar ? So, if the bazaar now puts value on CoCs ...you may either contribute or dissent and start up your own competing replacement. Isn't that the way it was supposed to work ?
Maybe it has done harm to GNU and the GPL, since they have become less relevant. But despite its problems, GitHub has been a huge net positive for free software. They considerably lowered the bar for making a project available. SourceForge acted as gatekeepers and rejected projects. With GitHub, anyone could start a project and no-one would look down on you and tell you that your project is not novel enough or whatev…
> SourceForge acted as gatekeepers and rejected projects. Did it? I remember starting two projects which made not much sense at all. I vaguely remember the process was automatic then. Has it changed with time?
Once you complete your registration, you must wait a few days for the SourceForge administrators to review your request and set up the infrastructure. You should receive an email response informing you of the project's creation when it is ready. You can check the status of any of your project requests by visiting your SourceForge home page: http://sourceforge.net/users/your-userid/ . There, you can view all of your SourceForge projects. Also, on the 'my projects' page you can see all your projects regardless of their approval status.
Source: https://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-Plugging-into-Sourc...