4 ms·

Github owned by Github. But this is something different. It is Github owned by Microsoft. Acquisitions, in general, do not end well for the established user-bas

Github owned by Github. But this is something different. It is Github owned by Microsoft. Acquisitions, in general, do not end well for the established user-base. Suggestion: move you repositories! Host your own repositories! Use something different, like Gerrit, to spice up your development! Take matters in your own hand! Own your data, own your compute!

sanderjd 7y ago
Is there something about this that I've missed that has something to do with the Microsoft acquisition? The same laws would have governed GitHub if they hadn't been acquired.
- onyva 7y ago
  From an Open Source developer point of view, yes, of course. Open Source projects should not be hosted with them. Period. It completely betrays the spirit of the licenses the code is released under, which guarantees access to anyone, regardless of political, religious, etc.
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    People of any religion, political affiliation can still access open source code. Just Iranians can't get it from GitHub (and theoretically, from any US company complying with our ridiculous sanctions policy). It has NOTHING to do with licenses, no matter how much you wish it did. How does MY decision as a programmer to host MY GPL-licensed code on GitHub somehow mandate an obligation on GitHub to break US law? How does it somehow violate the "spirit" of the license? If you think Microsoft in 2019 is some evil bad anti-Open-Source monster like it was 20 years ago, consider this: do you really think that Amazon, Google, Rackspace, or anybody else is going to sell services to Iranians in direct conflict with US law? Realistically, maybe the Feds don't care or won't care enough to do anything, but it's not like GitHub is just doing this because somebody there doesn't like Iran.
- edejong 7y ago
  It all depends on interpretation of the law, lobbying, stalling and the amount of bad press an actor can handle. Microsoft is a much older company and is likely to have stronger ties to the established government.

sanderjd 7y ago

Is there something about this that I've missed that has something to do with the Microsoft acquisition? The same laws would have governed GitHub if they hadn't been acquired.

onyva 7y ago
From an Open Source developer point of view, yes, of course. Open Source projects should not be hosted with them. Period. It completely betrays the spirit of the licenses the code is released under, which guarantees access to anyone, regardless of political, religious, etc.
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  People of any religion, political affiliation can still access open source code. Just Iranians can't get it from GitHub (and theoretically, from any US company complying with our ridiculous sanctions policy). It has NOTHING to do with licenses, no matter how much you wish it did. How does MY decision as a programmer to host MY GPL-licensed code on GitHub somehow mandate an obligation on GitHub to break US law? How does it somehow violate the "spirit" of the license? If you think Microsoft in 2019 is some evil bad anti-Open-Source monster like it was 20 years ago, consider this: do you really think that Amazon, Google, Rackspace, or anybody else is going to sell services to Iranians in direct conflict with US law? Realistically, maybe the Feds don't care or won't care enough to do anything, but it's not like GitHub is just doing this because somebody there doesn't like Iran.
edejong 7y ago
It all depends on interpretation of the law, lobbying, stalling and the amount of bad press an actor can handle. Microsoft is a much older company and is likely to have stronger ties to the established government.