Wincent Colaiuta <win@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'd like to see the "official" Git homepage as distanced as possible > from GitHub. They've taken Git (free as in speech, free as in beer) > and built a closed-source commercial product on top of it -- curiously > for something which you can do for free yourself anyway ... I do not share that sentiment. It is perfectly fine for somebody to offer managed git repositories as a commercial _service_ to people who want to just _use_ git. It is what they could do themselves, but from the end user's point of view, it's just "outsourcing" and is nothing unusual. If GitHub folks improved the core part of the system while building their service, we would want to get the changes back, and we will, _if_ they distribute their software (i.e. they are not allowed to just distribute binaries, if it links with git). At the emotional level, if some people make the world a better place by building new software around what I wrote, I would like to have the same kind of access to its source as I gave them access to my sources, whether they distribute the end product as packaged software or they offer it as a service to be used by others without ever distributing anything. But that is merely my _wish_; it is different from the terms git is distributed under. I think you are going a bit too far to hate them for not opening up their sources they use to implement "managed git repositories service", which is a _user_ of the core git, but most likely is not a derivative of git itself. IOW, it's not your code. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
