5 ms·

What? Github employs members of the Rails core team including Aaron Patterson. They literally pay for open source software development. I'm sure they employ di

What? Github employs members of the Rails core team including Aaron Patterson. They literally pay for open source software development. I'm sure they employ direct maintainers/contributors to other open source projects as well.

eberkund 9y ago
The Atom editor is widely used and was a major inspiration for VS Code. Electron, which is a GitHub project is also used for countless other projects.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  "major inspiration for VS Code" Which is a Microsoft product, and Microsoft is the inventor of EEE. Ergo, GitHub is complicit in an EEE attempt. Q.E.D. Case closed. /s
  - tracker1 9y ago
    So anyone who releases open-source code, that Microsoft might use in another open-source project is complicit in EEE? wow.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      My apologies; I should have made the "/s" - which denotes sarcasm - much more apparent.
eropple 9y ago
Yup. GitHub also released/contributed to a lot of other open-source Ruby stuff, like Resque.
hueving 9y ago
Are they paying him to help make an open source alternative to github? If not, then it's not really relevant. They are actively working against open source tooling for software development by developing features only for their closed platform. Gitlab is a much better example of a company that fully embraces open source.
- daxelrod 9y ago
  GitLab does not fully embrace Open Source. GitLab Enterprise Edition does not have an open source license. Since GitLab.com runs GitLab EE, their two (presumably) primary sources of revenue (EE licenses and GitLab.com paid accounts) come from non-open source software. But: it's still fair to call GitLab as a company way more Open Source than GitHub. All of their development happens out in the open, the vast majority of their codebase is Open Source, and the source code for GitLab EE is even made available. This is a spectrum, not black and white.
syshum 9y ago
And you believe that makes them an "Open Source Company" To me in order to be a Open Source company your primary product must itself be Open Source. RedHat as an example... RHEL is open source GitLab.. GitLab is open source These are open source companies Hiring a few devs for work on some side projects that are open source does not make one an Open Source Company If they open GitHub Core then they can claim to be a open source company
- heartbreak 9y ago
  Aaron Patterson, who I'll continue to use as an example, works full time on Rails while being paid by Github. Rails is not a side project for him. Also as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Github has published plenty of open source software. Electron, Atom, resque, and updates to git itself.
  - syshum 9y ago
    It is a side project for the company, as are all the other projects you mentioned As I clearly stated, GitHub can not be a Open Source company simply because they hired some devs to work on Open Source Do you consider Microsoft to be a Open Source Company?

eberkund 9y ago

The Atom editor is widely used and was a major inspiration for VS Code. Electron, which is a GitHub project is also used for countless other projects.

yellowapple 9y ago
"major inspiration for VS Code" Which is a Microsoft product, and Microsoft is the inventor of EEE. Ergo, GitHub is complicit in an EEE attempt. Q.E.D. Case closed. /s
- tracker1 9y ago
  So anyone who releases open-source code, that Microsoft might use in another open-source project is complicit in EEE? wow.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    My apologies; I should have made the "/s" - which denotes sarcasm - much more apparent.

eropple 9y ago

Yup. GitHub also released/contributed to a lot of other open-source Ruby stuff, like Resque.

hueving 9y ago

Are they paying him to help make an open source alternative to github? If not, then it's not really relevant. They are actively working against open source tooling for software development by developing features only for their closed platform. Gitlab is a much better example of a company that fully embraces open source.

daxelrod 9y ago
GitLab does not fully embrace Open Source. GitLab Enterprise Edition does not have an open source license. Since GitLab.com runs GitLab EE, their two (presumably) primary sources of revenue (EE licenses and GitLab.com paid accounts) come from non-open source software. But: it's still fair to call GitLab as a company way more Open Source than GitHub. All of their development happens out in the open, the vast majority of their codebase is Open Source, and the source code for GitLab EE is even made available. This is a spectrum, not black and white.

syshum 9y ago

And you believe that makes them an "Open Source Company" To me in order to be a Open Source company your primary product must itself be Open Source. RedHat as an example... RHEL is open source GitLab.. GitLab is open source These are open source companies Hiring a few devs for work on some side projects that are open source does not make one an Open Source Company If they open GitHub Core then they can claim to be a open source company

heartbreak 9y ago
Aaron Patterson, who I'll continue to use as an example, works full time on Rails while being paid by Github. Rails is not a side project for him. Also as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Github has published plenty of open source software. Electron, Atom, resque, and updates to git itself.
- syshum 9y ago
  It is a side project for the company, as are all the other projects you mentioned As I clearly stated, GitHub can not be a Open Source company simply because they hired some devs to work on Open Source Do you consider Microsoft to be a Open Source Company?