Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 06/04/2018 10:31 AM, Rich Shepard wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> No but it does show why using non open source platforms for open source >>> projects is an inherently bad idea. >> >> Joshua, >> >> Sourceforge seems to be out of favor, too, so are there any open source >> platforms that provide services that sourceforge and github do? > > Gitlab which can also be self hosted, the one GNU does (I don't recall > the name). > I find gitLab to be a pretty good alternative. However, I don't think there is any need to panic. While it is possible (likely?) that MS will change the terms and conditions which work in favour of maintaining their profitability, which may cause some problems for particularly large open source projects, nothing is going to happen over night or so quickly that projects won't have an opportunity to find an alternative. There is an alternative perspective to seeing MS purchase of Github which is a little more positive. The challenge for open source is that at some point, there is a cost associated with storage, collaboration and sharing of source code. This cost has to be paid for by someone. While we can hope for philanthropic donations and gifts to pay this cost, it probably isn't a sustainable solution. If on the other hand, there is a profitable business which can maintain profitability while incorporating open source support as part of core business, then we may have a more sustainable and reliable solution. I am no MS fan and have little experience in the MS suite of products, but I think most would have to acknowledge that MS has started to embrace open source far more than it did in the past. Consider for example their VS Code editor or the fact Windows now comes with a Bash shell and more integrated support for Linux. I suspect that we will see little change in Github in the short term and provided MS can maintain long term profitability, we may see little long-term change as well. Of course, this only holds for the very relaxed definition of open source. RMS would/will be using this as a clear example of MS destroying open source and the weakness of the general open source movement when it fails to emphasise freedom. For a strict open source definition which emphasises freedom rather than just 'openness', Github would likely already be ruled out due to their restrictive terms and conditions regarding ownership and licenses. However, the subtleties of RMS's concerns are often misunderstood and incompatible with our tendency to focus on short term, low friction solutions. For now, I'll just take a leaf out of 'the Guide', grab my towel and not panic! Tim -- Tim Cross
