41–50 of 225 posts
> No tracking. Your data is not for sale. Of course, Codeberg is not saying GitHub sells your data, but it seems to imply someone is selling your data if you don't use Codeberg and instead use other services. Is there any backing for this? Who sells your data if you use GitHub that won't sell your data when you use Codeberg?
> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues. If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you aren'…
> No tracking. Your data is not for sale. Of course, Codeberg is not saying GitHub sells your data, but it seems to imply someone is selling your data if you don't use Codeberg and instead use other services. Is there any backing for this? Who sells your data if you use GitHub that won't sell your data when you use Codeberg?
They are selling everyone's code through copilot
> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues. If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you aren'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't really change anything? Taking down a repository with no explanation is unacceptable regardless of context.
It does change things. Codeberg responded to orenom's request for explanation on the same day (see the archive link in the first source about people mentioning it was taken down) and further detailed it in the subsequent days. That's decent time to respond with an explanation if you don't have a formalized process to deal with this stuff (which given Codeberg is pretty small, seems likely). Very few providers will sh…
"Codeberg responded to orenom's request for explanation on the same day" does change things. You didn't include this in your previous comment from what I can see. Thanks for pointing it out.
> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues. If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you aren'…
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.
I don't want to learn a different UI for contributing to FOSS than the one I use for my daily work. I frankly do not care about the ethos of FOSS enough, neither do almost any developers, relative to the field, however overrepresented FOSS awareness is on HackerNews. I contribute back to open source when it's convenient - and not too expensive - to do so; making it _less_ convenient so the host can draw an arbitrary philosophical line in the sand is going to serve no purpose but to decrease contributions.
FOSS maintainers need to understand that the FOSS ethical and philosophical perspective is not universal - it is, in fact, quite rare in the industry. They need to understand that contributions and use are driven by utility and convenience and economics, not morality. Sacrificing anything utility-wise or convenience-wise for philosophy is just shooting themselves in the foot.
What makes it fast, and is GitHub not fast enough? Why is their UI (which is Forgejo, fork of Gitea) such a blatant clone of GitHub’s?
because their project goal is to iterate on the ownership model, not to iterate on the web design.
I use a self-hosted forgejo instance now (as of like, a week ago, let's see if I stick with it haha). I like GitHub the piece of software just fine, but I don't like the idea of my code training copilot. I think the design of GitHub is fine and people already know it, so I like that. If the reason you would want to not use GitHub is the design, gitea or forgejo will probably not be to your liking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are selling everyone's code through copilot
Copilot is trained on publicly available code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an alternative, in the same way Vegan food is an alternative to meats.
[flagged]