201–210 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all they wanted was to be free only for OSS they could have made their priceplan that way. Now they basically forbids non-OSS.
You could almost certainly pay to host non-open source projects on Codeberg. It happens to be that the price is unlisted, though (and it's probably higher than what you or anyone else would want to spend, anyway).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Services don't need to handle every single use case to be viable alternatives. GitHub does host proprietary software, but it is most well known for being a place to collaborate on free and open source software. Codeberg addresses this primary use case in a more focused way than GitHub intends to, and because of this, Codeberg is an excellent alternative to GitHub.
This sort of myopic, self-important, holier-than-thou perspective is why the open source community is so rarely successful in anything it tries to do for itself. Whatever you think Github's most known or most useful featureset is, the fact of the matter is it dominates because they don't draw philosophical lines in the sand and exclude people as a result. It's a big tent, all are welcome, and as a result, it has near…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub deserves to die because it hosts everyone and making proprietary software should be made as difficult as possible. Which is the same as being against people making a living from building and selling software. ie you are against the existence of programming as a profession. In specifically that case this is superior to GitHub.
> It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub deserves to die Geez, why so extreme? They choose whom they support for free, and they choose FLOSS projects with similar goals/philosophies. If your project has a different philosophy, fine, up to you, but it's not something they want to spend their time to support for free. You are welcome to go somewhere else, including going to or staying at GitHub. Nobody wan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub deserves to die Geez, why so extreme? They choose whom they support for free, and they choose FLOSS projects with similar goals/philosophies. If your project has a different philosophy, fine, up to you, but it's not something they want to spend their time to support for free. You are welcome to go somewhere else, including going to or staying at GitHub. Nobody wan…
You ask 'why so extreme'. What mostly riles me up about some 'foss movement' people is the fact that some of them think they're morally superior. In cases like the poster I replied to it seemed obvious and I point out what his ethics actually mean in the end. Perhaps it will make him think.
What frustrates me about GitHub is that GitHub Sponsors does not provide controls for associating a users funding amount with anything. Say I want to sell support: I should be able to associate a users sponsorship level with their capability to ask questions, i.e. sponsor my project for $X grants you N questions. GitHub provides no mechanism for this. Codeberg has an opportunity here to one-up GitHub by providing the…
To truly fix open source we need a platform that makes maintaining (and potentially merging similar projects) a breeze. And make sponsorship simple, and make it work. Otherwise new projects will keep popping up on new platforms, and go stale instantly once the maintainer runs out of the passion fuel.
People don't seem to realize the risk of centralizing on a single provider and solution. Currently, it's like 90% of the FOSS projects are hosted on GitHub. It all seems smooth and all until one day you log in to their platform and find yourself essentially shunned-off from collaborating on FOSS scene [1] . I'm grateful Codeberg, sourcehut and other alternatives exist. One nitpick from my experience: Codeberg's stati…
There should always be a mirror or archive for projects that are used, yeah. It's probably easier to archive stuff when it's centralised to one platform. Collaborating on multiple platforms would make sense if not everyone used GitHub. It's the kind of thing that can be solved on a needed basis. As far as I know the only thing people hate about GitHub is it was proven copilot was stealing code from repos where it ign…
If only all the platforms used the same protocol that allowed you to easily clone code from any of them just by changing the URL. Oh, wait…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Publicly available" is different from "licensed under a FOSS license". Anyone other than the original author doesn't have the right to distribute, modify or even execute the code. Even if the code is licensed under an open source license, in most cases it requires users to attribute the original author, while in some cases derivative work must be licensed under the same license too. GitHub Copilot use the code witho…
You grant GitHub a license to display your code, same for Codeberg, they're not bound by your license because you're granting them specific rights. Secondly can you prove damages when a person uses your code but doesn't attribute you? If you can't your license isn't very useful. This is what we all need to understand.
What the benefit of this vs. sr.ht?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub deserves to die Geez, why so extreme? They choose whom they support for free, and they choose FLOSS projects with similar goals/philosophies. If your project has a different philosophy, fine, up to you, but it's not something they want to spend their time to support for free. You are welcome to go somewhere else, including going to or staying at GitHub. Nobody wan…
You ask 'why so extreme'. What mostly riles me up about some 'foss movement' people is the fact that some of them think they're morally superior. In cases like the poster I replied to it seemed obvious and I point out what his ethics actually mean in the end. Perhaps it will make him think.
That may be so. I also don't like that. But the way to address that is not to be full of yourself yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub deserves to die Geez, why so extreme? They choose whom they support for free, and they choose FLOSS projects with similar goals/philosophies. If your project has a different philosophy, fine, up to you, but it's not something they want to spend their time to support for free. You are welcome to go somewhere else, including going to or staying at GitHub. Nobody wan…
If all they wanted was to be free only for OSS they could have made their priceplan that way. Now they basically forbids non-OSS.
FOSS is for free. Non-FOSS is $infinity. It's a very simple price plan.