11–20 of 34 posts
* note: apparently only repos above a certain number of stars (10?) are mirrored. Title changed to "extensively mirrored"
Not all: only of few of my repos have been cloned. But it's open sauce, right? Mine are Apache, so this is fine? As long as I can log in with "hunter2" as my password, it's definitely all fine. %-P
It's extremely distasteful and should be shamed.
Many people are talking about how it's mirrored not stolen, and this is permitted since it's open source. Let's put legal perspective and semantics aside - cloning all of GitHub into something called GitCode (which btw straight up stole GitHub's UX) is unethical. No one running these projects is expecting a pure clone to appear en masse onto another competing site. It's extremely distasteful and should be shamed.
The reason it’s on GitLab is because it was a free and easy place to put code in the first place.
Mirroring was extremely common when the internet was slower.
There is absolutely nothing unethical here in relationship to the project owners themselves.
This possibly might be damaging to GitHub themselves but even that is a stretch.
I would be extremely surprised if you’ll find project owners that are “offended” by this for lack of a better term and have published their code explicitly on GitHub in order to support GitHub.
Many people are talking about how it's mirrored not stolen, and this is permitted since it's open source. Let's put legal perspective and semantics aside - cloning all of GitHub into something called GitCode (which btw straight up stole GitHub's UX) is unethical. No one running these projects is expecting a pure clone to appear en masse onto another competing site. It's extremely distasteful and should be shamed.
Eh, the vast majority of people running these projects don’t care where it’s hosted. The reason it’s on GitLab is because it was a free and easy place to put code in the first place. Mirroring was extremely common when the internet was slower. There is absolutely nothing unethical here in relationship to the project owners themselves. This possibly might be damaging to GitHub themselves but even that is a stretch. I…
It’s one thing to fork, but then you have a different name attached to it. It’s entirely another to clone the open source world en masse with no auditable trails or connection to the original authors.
It’s one thing to mirror the repos, but it’s another to initially misrepresent the interactivity the repo is getting, even if they’re clear about it when you dig in.
Also, how do you authenticate so you can keep committing and interact with the repo to manage PRs and issues if it’s yours?
Cloning github repos is not "stealing"...
I haven't looked into the poster's history, but this definition of "stealing" is the exact opposite side of the coin taken by many user's who support LLM bots scraping all content on the internet.
Every user is an individual, so it's expected to have both sides of the coin expressed, but just reading this in the context of most stuff scolling through HN highlights the cocntrast.
It will crawl tech articles from other places, use LLM to copy one, and use gitcode url to replace github url.
Found a tweet: https://x.com/yihong0618/status/1776783712954581173/photo/1