Seems an awful lot like perfection being the enemy of good.

Github is and always has been a closed platform. It's also responsible for the largest explosion of open source activity from any single source in the last twenty years. Your argument relies on the assumption that the cost of migrating away from Github is a cost a FOSS project can pay and survive, which is a pretty heavy assumption as far as those things go. Even if the alternatives were comparable in UX, and they're not, there are entire ecosystems (Node, Golang, RubyGems, brew, etc.) that explicitly depend on Github. If you measure your software's success by any metric other than how well it aligns to your ethics, it's hard to justify anything but Github for a FOSS project.

Most people, IME, write FOSS software so people can find and use it. I remember the era when SourceForge was more-or-less the best thing you could hope for as far as central repositories were concerned, but they weren't much more than free static web hosting. I remember how difficult it was to contribute to Apache projects because figuring out their esoteric source control and patch process was so daunting. I remember googling for software packages to use and not having an easy route to quickly gauge whether its quality was worth investing further research. I wouldn't like to go back to a world where everything was hosted on free software if it means losing all the knowledge that exists in that one place.

There definitely seem like more important windmills to tilt at than pointing at the engine that drives the entire FOSS ecosystem and saying it's not good enough by the most stringent of ethical standards.

Many projects, some of them among the most successful projects in the world (Linux, PostgreSQL, Debian, others), are not on GitHub and are doing just fine. I reject the axiomatic statement that projects cannot survive outside of GitHub -- it's plainly ridiculous and trivially disproven. Thousands of successful projects do. Arguing otherwise contradicts the facts and serves only to justify the status quo.

Many people write FOSS for many different reasons. Chasing popularity is among the worst, and using GitHub is a poor way of achieving it regardless.

GitHub is not good enough. Placing all of our FOSS eggs in a proprietary basket which is incompatible with FOSS values is an absolutely foolish thing to do. The alternatives exist and are equal to the task, if not exceptional.

>> A maintainer who "doesn't care" if their infrastructure is proprietary is not doing a good job.

This is why pure FOSS hasn't, doesn't, and won't win. This overly moralistic posturing at every turn drives people away.

> A maintainer who "doesn't care" if their infrastructure is proprietary is not doing a good job.

This isn't to mention also the issues regarding code ownership, where GitHub now trains their Co-Pilot AI on code under any license.

> Note that GitLab is not really the answer to this problem. It's open core, subservient to its investors, and pulls a lot of stupid shit like this.

Even if GitLab pulled out on their payed-tiers now, it's too late. This has been coming for years with the paid version of GitLab features vs the free version, which always ran behind on functionality.

We are currently considering our options to move away from GitLab. Ideally we look for tickets, merge/pull requests, CI and the ability to allow the public to contribute.

@ddevault We have been looking at SourceHut at an alternative. Specifically some questions for you:

1. Will you have a non-email merge/patch system for SourceHut in the near future [1]? The problem isn't so much for our team, but to encourage external people to help with our project who are used to the likes of GitHub and GitLab.

2. With regards to pricing for SourceHut, how will the pricing look in the future [2]? We have a small project that could pay per person/group, but would struggle to pay what GitLab are asking [3]. GitHib pricing is better, but obviously your code then becomes the product.

Great work in any case, I really enjoy seeing your blog updates.

[1] https://drewdevault.com/2022/07/25/Code-review-with-aerc.htm...

[2] https://sourcehut.org/pricing/

[3] https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/

Regarding copilot training issue, I wonder if they can just train on any open-source projects that they can access, e.g. projects in SourceHut.

I remember their argument is that their training is considered fair use, legal/moral questions aside, doesn't it means that they can also justify using projects hosted on alternative platforms for training?

If your code is open source and matters at all, people put it on GitHub anyway. I refused to self-host any of my stuff on GitHub, but there are a ton of forks and mirrors of old versions there anyway (and then people get confused being unable to find the real copy because there seriously are asshats out there searching for code repositories exclusively on GitHub instead of Google).

While I am all for hosting elsewhere (and do so myself) I will admit to being one of these asshats. Lots of projects have semi-common names and Google/DDG will often surface irrelevant results. I often find it easier to find projects by just searching GitHub instead.

i am training my brain on the back of the hapless and poor authors like lee child and j.k rowling that i got off of piratebay. why do those "pesky rights" holders release their dogs after me?

1: We are working on a web tool which uses emails under the hood but is otherwise quite similar to pull/merge requests. We have already rolled out the contributor side of the process, which you can see demoed here:

https://spacepub.space/w/no6jnhHeUrt2E5ST168tRL

2: TBD, but we will consult with the community before making any final calls. There will be at least 90 days notice before any pricing changes once the long-term pricing is finalized. It definitely won't be anything near GitLab's extortionate pricing.

Appreciated, thanks.