> 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. He's already said that GitHub isn't appropriate for free software - sensu Stallman. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2015-12/msg00168.html > 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. Of course it would be against his principles - it's just another closed-source software company. Why people are complaining and threatening to jump ship just because it was bought by another entity whose only concern and priority (by **law**) is the bottom line, is completely beyond me! GitLab are also commercial, but I believe that they have the right blend of commercial and Open Source - you can't expect a company to host millions of projects on nothing but fresh air! From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab > In June 2018, the acquisition of competitor GitHub by Microsoft[24][25] caused a migration of over 250,000 projects to GitLab[26]. I just don't understand why people think Microsoft was any different from GitHub before the acquisition? Pól... > Tim
