3 ms·
Horrible in the sense of being an obvious mismatch for how development happens on GitHub, which pretty much exists to make contributions easy across institution
by velcrovan 8y ago
Horrible in the sense of being an obvious mismatch for how development happens on GitHub, which pretty much exists to make contributions easy across institutional boundaries. No one benefits from the choice of MIT as a GitHub default. It's a quagmire of legal confusion borne out of pure ignorance.
- teddyh 8y ago> GitHub, which pretty much exists to make contributions easy across institutional boundaries No, GitHub exists to somehow benefit the current owners, Microsoft, however they decide is the best way. > No one benefits from the choice of MIT as a GitHub default. Actually, there is a good argument to be made that Microsoft actually benefits from MIT being the default, as nickpsecurity pointed out in a sibling comment.
- velcrovan 8y agoOK I see what you're getting at. Sure, maybe MS is pushing MIT out of sneaky bastardliness. But, it kinda sounds like what you're saying is that as long as it's good for the owner it can't also be horrible. I mean, my auto shop exists to benefit me however I decide is best, and there is a good argument to be made that I benefit from sabotaging my customers' cars. So what!
- teddyh 8y ago> But, it kinda sounds like what you're saying is that as long as it's good for the owner it can't also be horrible. Oh, that explains the downvotes. No, that’s not what I meant. What I was trying to do was to socratically tease out the strangeness of calling something “horrible for GitHub repositories”, as if GitHub repositories had an inherent purpose.