Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

jorijn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 380 posts

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#361

Post by gchamonlive »

IanCal wrote: post #357
gchamonlive wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auth isn't UGC. And it's not enough to have a GitHub clone, you need people there doing work, therefore the value of the social component. Edit: I've written UAC in both my posts by accident, but I actually meant UGC: User generated content.

Good lord. Yes, people adding the content is important. What is the social component bringing people there? I’m repeatedly asking and you’re never covering this. Please try and actually read what I’m saying and engage with that because at no point are you covering the question I’m asking. I am not asking why people use GitHub. I am asking why there needs to be a single central place everyone goes, like social network…

Why so impatient? Do you think opening up with "good lord" will make people more interested in helping you?

> What is the social component bringing people there?

We've answered that again and again, pull requests, discussions, comments, following people. These bring people value. There isn't much more to it. And these aren't "just auth over cross repos". You reached the ocean here and you are still thinking it's just water, expecting it to be something greater. This is just it. That's the social component and the value it brings to the community.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#362

Post by account42 »

thisislife2 wrote: post #165
bayindirh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not forgetting the spirit of what Git is, I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone. So, no thanks. I'll not be committing any personal code there anymore. And no, I don't care for the social aspects either. Discoverability, stars, and AI bot powered issue bombardment. I'm fine like this. Also, remember, "Open Source is not about You".

I completely share your sentiment about feeling irked about open source code being used to train commercial AI models. However, I think the battle is already lost - the nature of copyright and open source code philosophy (currently) means that there isn't any real way of preventing your code being used to train AI. Look at the legal precedents being set in courts where many of the BigTechs have actually pirated copyr…

Even if you cannot do anything to prevent it you don't have to make it easy - and you can make it clear that you don't approve by boycotting GitHub over this.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#363

Post by account42 »

zdragnar wrote: post #297
bayindirh wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have written about this numerous times, so I won't repeat myself with the long form writing. Maybe I need to keep a list of comments somewhere, so I can reference them. I digress... In short: - GPL code requires attribution and sharing of code. Models strip license, so GPL is effectively violated. - Source available licenses are "for your eyes" only, so training on source available code is also violates said code's…

The GitHub terms of service has always granted GitHub additional rights. If you put up code with a license incompatible with those rights, then you are the responsible party for the violation, again as per GitHub's terms of service. This was true before AI, and the ToS now explicitly includes AI training to avoid confusion. In short: it has never been a good idea to put anything with a copy left or strong license up…

> If you put up code with a license incompatible with those rights, then you are the responsible party for the violation, again as per GitHub's terms of service.

This is not how copyright law works or any other law for that matter. The issue is foremost between the copyright author and GitHub. The ToS may or may not allow GitHub to sue the uploader for damages for a ToS does not magically give them rights that the uploader isn't legally able to give.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#364

Post by account42 »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #333
PaulKeeble wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did so in direct violation of the licenses of the code held there as well and then sold code snippets they had no rights to and still do.

IP law is a farce, and the open source licenses are built upon that farce. If a single good thing comes out of LLMs, it will be forcing society to recognize “intellectual property” for the dystopic stupidity that it is. I doubt it though.

That is a pipe dream. The current direction is the opposite of that - knowledge becomes even more centralized and only rented out to individuals.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#365

Post by account42 »

rpdillon wrote: post #222
dylan604 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. In fact, it claims authorship with nonsense bylines saying the LLM wrote it.

They key issue is whether the training is considered to be fair use; but this can only be determined in court. We have some preliminary indications that it definitely can be, but also may not be, depending on four factors, but predominantly the first and fourth factor (how transformative, how it affects the market for the original works). National Law Review covered some of those nuances last year: https://natlawrevi…

No, the key issue is whether the training is socially acceptable and sustainable. Court decisions based on pre-existing laws are only a small part of that discussion.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#366

Post by account42 »

HiPhish wrote: post #273
bayindirh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not forgetting the spirit of what Git is, I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone. So, no thanks. I'll not be committing any personal code there anymore. And no, I don't care for the social aspects either. Discoverability, stars, and AI bot powered issue bombardment. I'm fine like this. Also, remember, "Open Source is not about You".

> While I'm not forgetting the spirit of what Git is, I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone. As long as your code is out in the open anywhere the slop factories can train their models at it, regardless of whether it's on GitHub or your private server. So you might as well keep using GitHub at least as a gratis mirror. My reasoning is that if I…

Just because they technically can grab it doesn't mean you have to make it easy.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#367

Post by account42 »

troad wrote: post #349
locknitpicker wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "social component" is a big problem in actual FOSS. You're confusing things. The "social component" refers to people interacting with each other. Such as two developers working on a bug or a feature. Or a tester reporting a bug. This is a big part of actual professional software development work.

To be generous to OP, none of this is intrinsic to FOSS. I write a library. I put it up online, for other people to use, if they like. At what point did I assume any responsibility to play nice with others? Or work with others at all? There's FOSS licenses, and then there's the social expectations around collaborative online development, and the latter is nowhere implied in the former. FOSS was not historically weigh…

Spot on. And with the slop pull request currently plaguing the open collaboration model I foresee more projects moving (back) to the take-it-or-leave-it model.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#368

Post by account42 »

anarticle wrote: post #216
trueno wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my eyes have been glazing over it feels like our infra/devops dudes have proverbially given up and they're just looking to buy cloud services to do everything now. security guy looks like he wants to jump off a bridge and i keep trying to nudge them into waking up to not needing 99.9% uptime we'll settle with 95% uptime and no one needs to be on call, and you can go to sleep at night knowing all the code lives behind…

It's about offloading blame. If a server nukes, it's on infra to get a guy to unscrew it. If a service nukes, infra guy says "welp it's down", keeps on clicking. It doesn't matter what happens 6m-2y down the road, your odds of being laid off or job hopping are high in the current regime so this all makes sense. You pay some amount of your budget to make your life "easier" in the now. The trouble comes 2-5y down the l…

> tbh, migration is not that hard, but the org will act like it is

It actually would be hard to impossible if done properly - meaning no lost information and no dead links.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#369

Post by account42 »

mjw1007 wrote: post #127
pixlmint wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub centralizes 2 things: Authentication, as well as Repository Hosting. Does the code really need to be hosted in a central location like this? (Clearly not, which is why people are leaving GitHub in the first place) But the one part GitHub provides that's genuinely valuable is the social aspect, and when you get a PR from a user named torvalds you can trust that this is in fact Linus. This isn't the case with mo…

GitHub also centralises abuse detection. I'm not thinking about sophisticated attacks here so much as dealing with plain old spam. That's fairly easy to deal with on a tiny scale, and possible on a huge scale, but it's a great pain at a medium scale.

Do they though? Slow PRs have been a consistent pain point for GitHub hosted projects lately.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#370

Post by account42 »

skydhash wrote: post #125
lorecore wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signed commits could solve this in a more decentralized way if people post their public keys on their own domains.

Own domains is the real deal. My preffered model is tarball releases with checksums, or better yet, with signatures (like remind[0] or msmtp[1]). Such pages are trivial to host properly and loads quickly. [0]: https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind/ [1]: https://marlam.de/msmtp/download/

I was confused for a bit what those two projects have to do with signatures but I guess you are just using them as examples of having (PGP) signatures for downloads?
Post reply on HN