3 ms·

I have a couple of repos on GitHub that point to their new home on GitLab. Would it be ok if GitHub took over these projects for the same reason?

that_guy_iain 5y ago
Yes. And to think otherwise is acting entitled. GitHub is a for-profit company providing you services for free. It is outrageous to think that they must keep your repository up that is advertising a competitor. The entitlement from the tech scene honestly just stinks.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I get why you think this. But that's not how it works. Github is in an implied contract with its users - it provides free infrastructure for people to store their git repos, and in return it is considered the most prominent place to store git repos. Part of that contract is that what you store on Github belongs to you, not Github. If it breaks this contract, then it loses that prominence, and the paid accounts go away with that, too. The entire business model relies on Github being the place everyone goes to, and that is based on this implied contract. Breaking the contract breaks the business model. Same with Freenode. The communities do not belong to Freenode, despite being hosted there. If Freenode breaks this implied contract, then it loses all legitimacy and the communities will leave (as we're seeing happen).
- HomeDeLaPot 5y ago
  Providing free services doesn't give someone the right to be an asshole when users want to leave. It doesn't give them the right to suddenly seize a channel/repo that someone has put a lot of work into building up and then not take flak about it. Sure, the motivation for profit & retention is there, but capitalism != morality.
- Lazare 5y ago
  Github has every right to do that (subject to the term of their user service agreements and applicable local laws, etc., of course). It'd also cause the utter destruction of their current business model. They do NOT do this, because they recognise it is utterly incompatible with their goal of being a trusted hub for open source collaboration, which in turn is a key step in their larger strategy of achieving fat profits and market dominance. > GitHub is a for-profit company Yes, and they want to make a profit, so they don't do dumb stuff that, to pick a random example, a rich guy funding a small volunteer organisation as a hobby might feel comfortable doing.
  - that_guy_iain 5y ago
    At this point open source is not a major part of their business model. Open source doesn't make you money. Enterprise makes you money. And developers don't make purchasing choices at enterprise, there is an entire department for that. Now if you want to put it into context, if 75% of the git repos redirected you to GitLab, they would make that choice. This isn't 1 or 20 channels, if it wasn't they wouldn't be doing it would they? So lets be serious if this was happening on the percentage scales it is happening with freenode -> libre. GitHub 100% would do it.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Github has the right to kick out people but people also have the right to leave and they will.

that_guy_iain 5y ago

Yes. And to think otherwise is acting entitled. GitHub is a for-profit company providing you services for free. It is outrageous to think that they must keep your repository up that is advertising a competitor. The entitlement from the tech scene honestly just stinks.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
I get why you think this. But that's not how it works. Github is in an implied contract with its users - it provides free infrastructure for people to store their git repos, and in return it is considered the most prominent place to store git repos. Part of that contract is that what you store on Github belongs to you, not Github. If it breaks this contract, then it loses that prominence, and the paid accounts go away with that, too. The entire business model relies on Github being the place everyone goes to, and that is based on this implied contract. Breaking the contract breaks the business model. Same with Freenode. The communities do not belong to Freenode, despite being hosted there. If Freenode breaks this implied contract, then it loses all legitimacy and the communities will leave (as we're seeing happen).
HomeDeLaPot 5y ago
Providing free services doesn't give someone the right to be an asshole when users want to leave. It doesn't give them the right to suddenly seize a channel/repo that someone has put a lot of work into building up and then not take flak about it. Sure, the motivation for profit & retention is there, but capitalism != morality.
Lazare 5y ago
Github has every right to do that (subject to the term of their user service agreements and applicable local laws, etc., of course). It'd also cause the utter destruction of their current business model. They do NOT do this, because they recognise it is utterly incompatible with their goal of being a trusted hub for open source collaboration, which in turn is a key step in their larger strategy of achieving fat profits and market dominance. > GitHub is a for-profit company Yes, and they want to make a profit, so they don't do dumb stuff that, to pick a random example, a rich guy funding a small volunteer organisation as a hobby might feel comfortable doing.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  At this point open source is not a major part of their business model. Open source doesn't make you money. Enterprise makes you money. And developers don't make purchasing choices at enterprise, there is an entire department for that. Now if you want to put it into context, if 75% of the git repos redirected you to GitLab, they would make that choice. This isn't 1 or 20 channels, if it wasn't they wouldn't be doing it would they? So lets be serious if this was happening on the percentage scales it is happening with freenode -> libre. GitHub 100% would do it.
imtringued 5y ago
Github has the right to kick out people but people also have the right to leave and they will.