7 ms·

Hot take™ on GitHub and Microsoft, with Microsoft ownership of GitHub, they have effectively sized "open sources" means of production. They now own the defact

Hot take™ on GitHub and Microsoft, with Microsoft ownership of GitHub, they have effectively sized "open sources" means of production. They now own the defacto superhighway that much of "open source" reproduces itself. Is GitHub becoming less a free host for git projects (not that they're suddenly charging) and becoming more a capital accumulator of free labor, enclosing open source software behind an invisible fence? my concern is that github is becoming a marketplace where consumers of open source software (corporations, etc) can accumulate labor by reducing their own costs, they do this by externalizing the cost of developing software by appropriating it from open source projects. it both makes it easy to for for-profit companies to externalize the cost of producing software and cheap (free) to consume OSS, and it drives the perception of the value of software to to nothing (the actual labor-time of the software creation is quite high). Much of the OSS labor being done is subsidized by the contributors paid day jobs.

dleslie 7y ago
I don't think it's necessary for GitHub to exist, or be owned by Microsoft, for open source efforts to be exploited in the manner which you describe. OTOH, I'm unaware of any hard data regarding just how much open source work is done at the behest of commercial interests, and without compensation. Come to think of it, that might violate minimum wage laws in some countries.
pm90 7y ago
It very well might be. But why is it bad? If there are more incentives to open source more things, I say let them go nuts. Our incentives are aligned. What OSS does is to democratize access to tech building blocks. There is still a ton of wealth generation possible by using these blocks to build useful products.
wyldfire 7y ago
> github is becoming a marketplace where consumers of open source software (corporations, etc) can accumulate labor by reducing their own costs This is kinda the perpetual quid-pro-quo of Open Source, though, right? It's mutually beneficial so it continues like this. Folks who fear misuse/abuse from licensees usually gravitate towards GPL -- it's much more user focused and IMO makes some sense.
brennebeck 7y ago
Wasn’t that happening regardless of MSFT? GitHub has long been the OSS ‘superhighway’...
- icxa 7y ago
  GitHub was viewed as independent with a vested interest in keeping open source going. With Microsoft it still feels like a means to some sort of end.
  - brennebeck 7y ago
    How so? As far as I can tell there’s no evidence of that? I mean, I get MSFT’s past, but for quite some time they’ve shown they support OSS and developers in general. I haven’t seen any change in GitHub and MSFT, in general, has become much more supportive of OSS efforts.
    - tombert 7y ago
      Not the OP, speaking for myself. I guess the thing that concerns me (not speaking for anyone else) has largely been the (admittedly late) realization that Github can be bought. I had, for some indiscernible reason, thought of Github as this near-benevolent entity that existed exclusively to facilitate open-source and distribute Octocat stickers. When they were purchased by one of the largest megacorporations on the planet, it pulled-back the curtain, and showed that, no, they are a for-profit business, not a charity. I shouldn't have thought that way, but I did, and as a result the MS-buying-Github thing has not sat well with me.
      - brennebeck 7y ago
        Fair enough; I understand that point of view, and even had it myself, to some degree. But I also think that has little to do with MSFT. The same would be said if SF, or Amazon, or (insert any other large corp) would have bought them. I also think GitHub, essentially, positioned themselves that way. However, that, if viewed a bit cynically, could easily be seen as just marketing or PR.
m_mueller 7y ago
I think you're describing an inevitable endgame of information technology: Value of software tends towards 0, as it can be copied with very low cost, while value of data tends towards the value given by scarcity and actionable information of that data. In there you've encoded the value of business processes within the data economy. Which is why long term, only the services model can endure while pure software vendors will have to either adapt or die. Among the traditional software companies, Microsoft has been the strongest in adapting to this new paradigm. I only wonder though, how long this economy is going to last, i.e. how long until AI is so commoditized that the value of data goes towards 0 as well, along with the value of most education in IT.
- starbugs 7y ago
  That doesn't quite match the reality that I can see. A static piece of code may tend to 0 (business) value, but software that is actively being used and maintained tends to have significant value. That is probably one of the key reasons why the service model is so successful. Static software's value rots away quickly, but software that is actively being used appears to be getting more valuable over time. If and when the point of advanced AI that you describe is reached, does it still matter? Everything will have lost its value by then unless society changes its mind about what a machine with that level of intelligence is. Just my 2 cents.
  - m_mueller 7y ago
    I get the impression that we're actually in agreement, just with different wording. For me the term 'software' is describing exactly that, a static piece of code. The usage part is encoded in data that goes back to the developers - but if all they do with it is provide another static piece of code (e.g. an upgrade), we're at the same starting point again. Now, if you merge together development and operations, such that usage data is always there to grab, analyse and push down a development pipeline - that's where the services model is shining, but not thanks to a piece of code, but due to tons of business processes running that others can't easily replicate.
    - 7y ago
rch 7y ago
When I saw the headline I wondered: what would it take to actually win me over? I'd say that spinning GH back out with foundation support, and strong privacy protections, would be a solid start.
- ralph84 7y ago
  What about GitHub's current privacy policy do you find objectionable?
  - rch 7y ago
    Currently they mention that they collect "aggregated, non-personally identifying information ... about how our users, collectively, use GitHub", which is perfectly reasonable for a corporation providing services which many users consume at no cost. But if GH was under foundation control it would be nice if that same data were kept private.
    - ralph84 7y ago
      The privacy policies of Mozilla, Apache, and Linux Foundation say more or less the same thing. Do you have an example of a relevant foundation that doesn't collect information on their users? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/websites/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/websites/ https://apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html https://apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html https://www.linuxfoundation.org/cookies/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/cookies/
      - rch 7y ago
        I don't believe those organizations typically share that information with other corporations. Sorry if I've let this aspect overshadow the more general point of foundation control -- I was just trying to avoid a potential loophole in that hypothetical model.
duxup 7y ago
>where consumers of open source software (corporations, etc) can accumulate labor by reducing their own costs, they do this by externalizing the cost of developing software by appropriating it from open source projects Isn't that effectively the end result of OSS ... for everyone? I use it too.
antisemiotic 7y ago
>Is GitHub becoming less a free host for git projects Is this a good time for a friendly reminder that GitLab hosts private projects for free?
abstract7 7y ago
Consuming software cost producers zero, practically. You do have overhead from 'how does this work with docker', of course. However, don't get offended at the 'useless software eaters'. The greatest consumer beneficiaries are driving their populations out of poverty, like China and India. China is the #1 software 'cost externalizer'. Developing nations are the #1 relative gainers (proportionally) from consuming open-source. All this means lower infant mortality, less unemployed women, and longer life expectancies. Let them eat. The US, the largest and wealthiest, is the #1 open-source contributor. However, in absolute terms, we (USA) are the greatest beneficiaries of open-source software. Just look at how high of a valuation our tech companies still fetch and how we have most of the top corporations. Yet still, the millions of Indian persons getting online every year and other gains has a greater relative impact than a 3% growth in our real GDP. Also the addition of new programmers from developing nations is going to drive development costs down. And with the intro of ML code recommenders and distributed platforms, dev costs will fall in half every few years in that not so distant future. Software is incredibly expensive to develop at the moment. See tech hubs real estate and housing costs. The global trends that affected middle America is going to enter Silicon Valley like a tornado. Yet you make a could point that from an accounting standpoint, costs are not clearly accrued by the companies that contribute their workers time to their open-source dependencies. There is some inefficiencies in determining which contributor pull requests get accepted; corporate sponsorshing projects and hiring contributors is a payment, in some cases, to have a higher probability of getting code merged. The largest contributors of the most valuable projects, like the Linux kernal, are large stakeholders that are dependent on the project. And most successful projects I've seen have competition from developers seeking to add stuff that helps their company projects better interoperate with the dependency. So the accounting is not very accurate. However, all open-source developer contributions will soon be weighed by others so that those not so high up on the project food chain can be directly compensated. This is getting worked on, now. Every one who contributes value will be rewarded.

dleslie 7y ago

I don't think it's necessary for GitHub to exist, or be owned by Microsoft, for open source efforts to be exploited in the manner which you describe. OTOH, I'm unaware of any hard data regarding just how much open source work is done at the behest of commercial interests, and without compensation. Come to think of it, that might violate minimum wage laws in some countries.

pm90 7y ago

It very well might be. But why is it bad? If there are more incentives to open source more things, I say let them go nuts. Our incentives are aligned. What OSS does is to democratize access to tech building blocks. There is still a ton of wealth generation possible by using these blocks to build useful products.

wyldfire 7y ago

> github is becoming a marketplace where consumers of open source software (corporations, etc) can accumulate labor by reducing their own costs This is kinda the perpetual quid-pro-quo of Open Source, though, right? It's mutually beneficial so it continues like this. Folks who fear misuse/abuse from licensees usually gravitate towards GPL -- it's much more user focused and IMO makes some sense.

brennebeck 7y ago

Wasn’t that happening regardless of MSFT? GitHub has long been the OSS ‘superhighway’...

icxa 7y ago
GitHub was viewed as independent with a vested interest in keeping open source going. With Microsoft it still feels like a means to some sort of end.
- brennebeck 7y ago
  How so? As far as I can tell there’s no evidence of that? I mean, I get MSFT’s past, but for quite some time they’ve shown they support OSS and developers in general. I haven’t seen any change in GitHub and MSFT, in general, has become much more supportive of OSS efforts.
  - tombert 7y ago
    Not the OP, speaking for myself. I guess the thing that concerns me (not speaking for anyone else) has largely been the (admittedly late) realization that Github can be bought. I had, for some indiscernible reason, thought of Github as this near-benevolent entity that existed exclusively to facilitate open-source and distribute Octocat stickers. When they were purchased by one of the largest megacorporations on the planet, it pulled-back the curtain, and showed that, no, they are a for-profit business, not a charity. I shouldn't have thought that way, but I did, and as a result the MS-buying-Github thing has not sat well with me.
    - brennebeck 7y ago
      Fair enough; I understand that point of view, and even had it myself, to some degree. But I also think that has little to do with MSFT. The same would be said if SF, or Amazon, or (insert any other large corp) would have bought them. I also think GitHub, essentially, positioned themselves that way. However, that, if viewed a bit cynically, could easily be seen as just marketing or PR.

m_mueller 7y ago

I think you're describing an inevitable endgame of information technology: Value of software tends towards 0, as it can be copied with very low cost, while value of data tends towards the value given by scarcity and actionable information of that data. In there you've encoded the value of business processes within the data economy. Which is why long term, only the services model can endure while pure software vendors will have to either adapt or die. Among the traditional software companies, Microsoft has been the strongest in adapting to this new paradigm. I only wonder though, how long this economy is going to last, i.e. how long until AI is so commoditized that the value of data goes towards 0 as well, along with the value of most education in IT.

starbugs 7y ago
That doesn't quite match the reality that I can see. A static piece of code may tend to 0 (business) value, but software that is actively being used and maintained tends to have significant value. That is probably one of the key reasons why the service model is so successful. Static software's value rots away quickly, but software that is actively being used appears to be getting more valuable over time. If and when the point of advanced AI that you describe is reached, does it still matter? Everything will have lost its value by then unless society changes its mind about what a machine with that level of intelligence is. Just my 2 cents.
- m_mueller 7y ago
  I get the impression that we're actually in agreement, just with different wording. For me the term 'software' is describing exactly that, a static piece of code. The usage part is encoded in data that goes back to the developers - but if all they do with it is provide another static piece of code (e.g. an upgrade), we're at the same starting point again. Now, if you merge together development and operations, such that usage data is always there to grab, analyse and push down a development pipeline - that's where the services model is shining, but not thanks to a piece of code, but due to tons of business processes running that others can't easily replicate.
  - 7y ago

rch 7y ago

When I saw the headline I wondered: what would it take to actually win me over? I'd say that spinning GH back out with foundation support, and strong privacy protections, would be a solid start.

ralph84 7y ago
What about GitHub's current privacy policy do you find objectionable?
- rch 7y ago
  Currently they mention that they collect "aggregated, non-personally identifying information ... about how our users, collectively, use GitHub", which is perfectly reasonable for a corporation providing services which many users consume at no cost. But if GH was under foundation control it would be nice if that same data were kept private.
  - ralph84 7y ago
    The privacy policies of Mozilla, Apache, and Linux Foundation say more or less the same thing. Do you have an example of a relevant foundation that doesn't collect information on their users? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/websites/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/websites/ https://apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html https://apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html https://www.linuxfoundation.org/cookies/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/cookies/
    - rch 7y ago
      I don't believe those organizations typically share that information with other corporations. Sorry if I've let this aspect overshadow the more general point of foundation control -- I was just trying to avoid a potential loophole in that hypothetical model.

duxup 7y ago

>where consumers of open source software (corporations, etc) can accumulate labor by reducing their own costs, they do this by externalizing the cost of developing software by appropriating it from open source projects Isn't that effectively the end result of OSS ... for everyone? I use it too.

antisemiotic 7y ago

>Is GitHub becoming less a free host for git projects Is this a good time for a friendly reminder that GitLab hosts private projects for free?

abstract7 7y ago

Consuming software cost producers zero, practically. You do have overhead from 'how does this work with docker', of course. However, don't get offended at the 'useless software eaters'. The greatest consumer beneficiaries are driving their populations out of poverty, like China and India. China is the #1 software 'cost externalizer'. Developing nations are the #1 relative gainers (proportionally) from consuming open-source. All this means lower infant mortality, less unemployed women, and longer life expectancies. Let them eat. The US, the largest and wealthiest, is the #1 open-source contributor. However, in absolute terms, we (USA) are the greatest beneficiaries of open-source software. Just look at how high of a valuation our tech companies still fetch and how we have most of the top corporations. Yet still, the millions of Indian persons getting online every year and other gains has a greater relative impact than a 3% growth in our real GDP. Also the addition of new programmers from developing nations is going to drive development costs down. And with the intro of ML code recommenders and distributed platforms, dev costs will fall in half every few years in that not so distant future. Software is incredibly expensive to develop at the moment. See tech hubs real estate and housing costs. The global trends that affected middle America is going to enter Silicon Valley like a tornado. Yet you make a could point that from an accounting standpoint, costs are not clearly accrued by the companies that contribute their workers time to their open-source dependencies. There is some inefficiencies in determining which contributor pull requests get accepted; corporate sponsorshing projects and hiring contributors is a payment, in some cases, to have a higher probability of getting code merged. The largest contributors of the most valuable projects, like the Linux kernal, are large stakeholders that are dependent on the project. And most successful projects I've seen have competition from developers seeking to add stuff that helps their company projects better interoperate with the dependency. So the accounting is not very accurate. However, all open-source developer contributions will soon be weighed by others so that those not so high up on the project food chain can be directly compensated. This is getting worked on, now. Every one who contributes value will be rewarded.