4 ms·

Github itself is not open source. The irony.

by dkural 10y ago

grzm 10y ago
There are plenty of useful closed source services and tools that can be used to support open source projects, or just software development in general. Indeed, they facilitate open source projects with an easy to use service. Is there anything they're doing that prevents or blocks open source development? They do have open source projects that they've made available.
- dkural 10y ago
  My pizza joint does not prevent or block open source development either. Apple has open source projects that they've made available. Many people use Visual Studio and Azure for open source projects, or software development in general. I find it very easy to use. I hope Github makes a lot of money from enabling open source. Who knows, maybe Microsoft will buy it. More seriously: Github is a business focused on turning open source community ethos into hard $$$. There is nothing wrong with that, and their model depends on people buying into the carefully constructed marketing of Github -hearts- open source. It's inconvenient for Github for people to point out that it is a closed source for-profit business with shareholders to please.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Many companies take advantage of open source software. Some support open source through support contracts. Some which develop software release some of it, and employ devs who also contribute to projects. I'm sure there are many other ways companies use and support OSS directly and indirectly; some, don't support OSS at all. SaaS companies are in a position where it can make it difficult for them to release their core software because it severely undercuts their viability if it's easy for people to set up their own installations. What follows is naïve speculation as to counter arguments: One could argue that they could differentiate themselves on better quality of service and support. It's possible, of course, but there may be enough people willing to put up with lesser quality that it may not be feasible for them to survive. One could counter that taking advantage of community software contributions can lower their own internal development costs. Maybe, but there are very real costs when managing an open source project, including not being able to move as fast as they may want to. For example, if GitHub wanted to make a change for expediency' sake that wouldn't be appropriate for the community code, they're saddled with maintaining their own fork, which adds considerable overhead. Of course GitHub loves open source. Their business is to provide a service that benefits open source (and closed source, for that matter) projects by providing infrastructure to manage their code. Some of their current and former employees are well-known in the open source community. I refuse to see anything nefarious or untoward (or even the slightest bit bad) about this until I see them doing something that impedes or actively works against open source. I see nothing "inconvenient" for GitHub about this. Some people are far too quick to go out of their way to look for hypocrisy. (And as for "turning open source community ethos into hard $$$": my goodness. Yes, they make money. I hope plenty to continue to support the business, improve the service, and pay their employees well. How many community projects pay nothing for hosting on GitHub? How many devs pay to host their own projects, or fork others? The only reason I've considered paying was to host private repos: not open source. It'd be interesting to see their revenue numbers, but I suspect most of their revenue is for enterprise installs for software that isn't open source. Any corrections as to this most welcome.) And there are alternatives for those who want open source. GitLab appears to be a great one.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - JonathonW 10y ago
    Meanwhile, GitLab is also a business focused on turning open source community ethos into hard $$$-- part of their core product may be open source, but they're not a non-profit. (One might even say that Gitlab is even more focused on turning open-source community ethos into hard $$$, because GitLab takes open-sourced community contributions to GitLab CE and rolls them directly into their paid, closed-source GitLab EE. Not that I'm suggesting that's necessarily a bad thing; I just want to make it clear that this isn't a Mozilla-style "take contributions from the community for the community's sake"-type thing.)
    - yorwba 10y ago
      > GitLab takes open-sourced community contributions to GitLab CE and rolls them directly into their paid, closed-source GitLab EE Just FYI, the GitLab EE source code is available at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/. You're right about the "paid" part, though.
romanovcode 10y ago
Yeah, even their enterprise edition code is obfuscated like crazy. For a company that praises open-source so much they really do try to be as closed as possible themselves.
- dsacco 10y ago
  Have you tried to reverse engineer GitHub EE?

Github itself is not open source. The irony.

by dkural 10y ago

Github itself is not open source. The irony.

grzm 10y ago

There are plenty of useful closed source services and tools that can be used to support open source projects, or just software development in general. Indeed, they facilitate open source projects with an easy to use service. Is there anything they're doing that prevents or blocks open source development? They do have open source projects that they've made available.

dkural 10y ago
My pizza joint does not prevent or block open source development either. Apple has open source projects that they've made available. Many people use Visual Studio and Azure for open source projects, or software development in general. I find it very easy to use. I hope Github makes a lot of money from enabling open source. Who knows, maybe Microsoft will buy it. More seriously: Github is a business focused on turning open source community ethos into hard $$$. There is nothing wrong with that, and their model depends on people buying into the carefully constructed marketing of Github -hearts- open source. It's inconvenient for Github for people to point out that it is a closed source for-profit business with shareholders to please.
- grzm 10y ago
  Many companies take advantage of open source software. Some support open source through support contracts. Some which develop software release some of it, and employ devs who also contribute to projects. I'm sure there are many other ways companies use and support OSS directly and indirectly; some, don't support OSS at all. SaaS companies are in a position where it can make it difficult for them to release their core software because it severely undercuts their viability if it's easy for people to set up their own installations. What follows is naïve speculation as to counter arguments: One could argue that they could differentiate themselves on better quality of service and support. It's possible, of course, but there may be enough people willing to put up with lesser quality that it may not be feasible for them to survive. One could counter that taking advantage of community software contributions can lower their own internal development costs. Maybe, but there are very real costs when managing an open source project, including not being able to move as fast as they may want to. For example, if GitHub wanted to make a change for expediency' sake that wouldn't be appropriate for the community code, they're saddled with maintaining their own fork, which adds considerable overhead. Of course GitHub loves open source. Their business is to provide a service that benefits open source (and closed source, for that matter) projects by providing infrastructure to manage their code. Some of their current and former employees are well-known in the open source community. I refuse to see anything nefarious or untoward (or even the slightest bit bad) about this until I see them doing something that impedes or actively works against open source. I see nothing "inconvenient" for GitHub about this. Some people are far too quick to go out of their way to look for hypocrisy. (And as for "turning open source community ethos into hard $$$": my goodness. Yes, they make money. I hope plenty to continue to support the business, improve the service, and pay their employees well. How many community projects pay nothing for hosting on GitHub? How many devs pay to host their own projects, or fork others? The only reason I've considered paying was to host private repos: not open source. It'd be interesting to see their revenue numbers, but I suspect most of their revenue is for enterprise installs for software that isn't open source. Any corrections as to this most welcome.) And there are alternatives for those who want open source. GitLab appears to be a great one.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- JonathonW 10y ago
  Meanwhile, GitLab is also a business focused on turning open source community ethos into hard $$$-- part of their core product may be open source, but they're not a non-profit. (One might even say that Gitlab is even more focused on turning open-source community ethos into hard $$$, because GitLab takes open-sourced community contributions to GitLab CE and rolls them directly into their paid, closed-source GitLab EE. Not that I'm suggesting that's necessarily a bad thing; I just want to make it clear that this isn't a Mozilla-style "take contributions from the community for the community's sake"-type thing.)
  - yorwba 10y ago
    > GitLab takes open-sourced community contributions to GitLab CE and rolls them directly into their paid, closed-source GitLab EE Just FYI, the GitLab EE source code is available at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/. You're right about the "paid" part, though.

romanovcode 10y ago

Yeah, even their enterprise edition code is obfuscated like crazy. For a company that praises open-source so much they really do try to be as closed as possible themselves.

dsacco 10y ago
Have you tried to reverse engineer GitHub EE?