Give up GitHub: The time has come • Hacker News Board

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#341

Post by doodlesdev » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:44 PM UTC

qayxc wrote: post #144

u801e wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about websites that won't even render static text when javascript is disabled. For example, any website that references sinclairstoryline for javascript will not render anything at all until you give permission to run scripts from both the website and that external host. If I'm just reading static text on a web page, theres'a absolutely no reason why I should need javascript to just read it.

> If I'm just reading static text on a web page, theres'a absolutely no reason why I should need javascript to just read it. 100% true if the site is privately funded. In most other cases JS is required for ad integration and analytics. I don't like it, but I understand that funding is required and ads are the simplest way to get there without getting into the whole micro-payment and paid subscription mess.

Forcing people to run JavaScript does not guarantee that Analytics or Ads will run as these might get blocked by DNS, Extensions or even the browser itself. I understand the need for them but I don't think it excuses the need to run JavaScript to see text. By the way Hacker News has ads on their main page and the website works perfectly without JavaScript, and even better with it enabled! IMO the job of JavaScript is to enhance the UX, not render the webpage. With modern tooling such as NextJS and Svelte Kit it's possible to code everything in JS (without duplicating logic between backend and frontend) and still have some stuff work without JavaScript, even better when using something like Remix.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#342

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:44 PM UTC

naikrovek wrote: post #320

josephcsible wrote: post #122

> If it is, as you claim, permissible to train the model (and allow users to generate code based on that model) on any code whatsoever and not be bound by any licensing terms, why did you choose to only train Copilot's model on FOSS? For example, why are your Microsoft Windows and Office codebases not in your training set? This is my favorite question about Copilot ever.

I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. Each and every opponent of Copilot is the best developer ever, I guess? That said, I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason, so maybe I'm not equipped to under…

The D language uses the Boost license because it is the least restrictive. Anyone is free to use it in closed-source non-free commercial apps if they like, or Open Source if they like.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#343

Post by alcover » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:45 PM UTC

natefinch wrote: post #333

rglullis wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget Copilot for a second. Do you think it is healthy for the industry to be so dependent on one single service provider, and a closed one on top of that?

I think it's like any social network. It grows in value with how many people use it. Yes, you can host your own public git repo or even your own gitlab, but then there's a barrier of entry to contribute to your code, and it's a lot harder for others to discover it. disclosure: I work for github

  > barrier of entry to contribute to your code

What barrier, may I ask ?

  > it's a lot harder for others to discover it.

The vast majority of stars I got was from a HN submission, not from organic discovery through GH search.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#344

Post by doodlesdev » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #92

Nemo157 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JS being required for the interactive features would be fine. My personal problem is that I end up on some random gitlab instance to just take a look at the source or issues for some library, and get a blank white page. For the read-only public view there should be no need for any JS.

I understand that thinking but it's ignores reality. To do what you want you want means maintaining 2 codebases (even if just for sub-parts of a site). It's really easy to say "This specific page could be static" and you are right, it could, but it would mean having fallbacks for every JS interaction on the page (or removing them if the user has JS disabled). There simply aren't enough people who die on the no-JS hil…

Or you could server render the pages and hydrate them as needed which is something easy to do with NextJS, NuxtJS, Remix, Fresh, among other modern frameworks for developing with JavaScripts libs.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#345

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:47 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #122

> If it is, as you claim, permissible to train the model (and allow users to generate code based on that model) on any code whatsoever and not be bound by any licensing terms, why did you choose to only train Copilot's model on FOSS? For example, why are your Microsoft Windows and Office codebases not in your training set? This is my favorite question about Copilot ever.

Note that while Copilot is a major motivator for this effort, it isn't the only one; there's a pile of other reasons listed at https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ . GitHub and its lock-in has been a problem for a long time, and this is just the most recent problem.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#346

Post by TheDong » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

naikrovek wrote: post #338

bonzini wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of my code, both direct and indirect. Developers don't need to have any more freedoms than other users.

> Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of [your] code No, that’s forcing restriction on all users of your code. Usage restriction is the opposite of freedom… Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!”

What you are pointing out is similar to "the paradox of tolerance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

By analogy, there is a law against me putting handcuffs on another, and in fact the police would stop me from doing so. Did the police protect freedom? Aren't they restricting me from handcuffing others?

In a similar manner, under the MIT I can restrict my users from modifying and compiling my source code. Is a license that means I have to let my users modify code restricting freedom? Isn't it ensuring freedom of others, in the same way that making laws of "you shall not handcuff others for no reason" is ensuring freedom of others?

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#347

Post by doodles33 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #140

josephcsible wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like it's impossible to build a Web app that supports rich interactions without a page-reload without requiring JavaScript, but this isn't true. You can use progressive enhancement/graceful degradation to build one such that users with JavaScript still get the experience they get now, while users without it will have an experience that's slightly clunkier but still usable.

And as I said in reply to a sibling comment: Then you are effectively maintaining 2 codebases. Also, I'm not aware of any SPA framework (at least the big 3) that even offer an escape hatch to do something like that. Maybe with SSR and some special logic you could but it would be painful and ultimately not worth it.

Remix provides something close to what you are thinking, the application works perfectly without JavaScript but gets enhanced if it's enabled which is pretty nice.

edit: Without code duplication of course

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#348

Post by PeterisP » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

naikrovek wrote: post #338

bonzini wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of my code, both direct and indirect. Developers don't need to have any more freedoms than other users.

> Forcing your code to be open forever is guaranteeing freedom of all users of [your] code No, that’s forcing restriction on all users of your code. Usage restriction is the opposite of freedom… Forcing all of your code to be GPL is like saying “I am on a diet, so now I will force everyone else be on the same diet. Freedom!”

MIT license permits you to deny your users the ability to read and modify the previously open code.

GPL license ensures that your users will keep the same freedoms that you got.

Of course, there's an inherent conflict - the freedom to oppress others is incompatible with freedom from oppression.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#349

Post by zvr » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

seadan83 wrote: post #328

zvr wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is copilot really a violation of GPLv3 (our license)? How is co-pilot different from someone lifting sections of code? If it's reproducing vebratim your code, yes it's a violation. And this is no different from others copying sections of your code. The license that you chose says that people are allowed to do many things (e.g. copy and modify the code), provided they also fulfil some obligations. If they don't do t…

It sounds like Github needs to index the license of where it obtained code, and check the license of a project using co-pilot so that it only suggests GPLv3 code for compatible projects. I'm not sure that it is really enough, enforcement is tough, it could be like one of those "are you 18" checkboxes. I get the impression that this article and it's reaction is largely a lot of people wanting to cry big brother and mo…

I think the article starts from the position "everyone should respect the software license" and obviously promoting the SFC views.

You are correct that the problem is hard, because adding licensing info to training data and subsequently use it is something not yet accomplished by anyone (who at least has spoken publicly about it). It might be the only way out would be to have different training sets according to license, but then you lose the advantage of scale.

On the other hand, I believe it's a little much to ask SFC to do the cutting-edge research and propose solutions to Microsoft. Let's not forget that, when faced with the problem, their chosen path was "completely disregard licenses (for now), ask legal later". Many legal opinions are that there would not be any issue if copies of the input code were not reproduced verbatim; unfortunately this is not the case.

Looking forward to more exciting developments!

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#350

Post by bombcar » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #342

naikrovek wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. Each and every opponent of Copilot is the best developer ever, I guess? That said, I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason, so maybe I'm not equipped to under…

The D language uses the Boost license because it is the least restrictive. Anyone is free to use it in closed-source non-free commercial apps if they like, or Open Source if they like.

How is Boost different from something like 0-clause BSD?