3 ms·

How are you being oppressed by a SaaS offering that charges you nothing and uses a standard protocol (git)?

xigoi 4y ago
It uses your code in a paid closed-source service (Copilot), and creates vendor lock-in using proprietary features like GitHub Actions. Not to mention that it's quite absurd for the majority of free software projects to be hosted on a proprietary platform.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  It seems to bother you, I don't have any issues with people using code I put into the public domain which I why I use the unlicense. GitHub Actions is YAML based, and the reason most people use a SCM provider like Github or GitLab is because they have superior collaboration and auditing features. At the end of the day no one forces you to use a public repo(copilot) or GitHub Actions. If I use Jenkins am I any less locked in?
  - xigoi 4y ago
    > I don't have any issues with people using code I put into the public domain which I why I use the unlicense. Good for you. I use the GNU GPL, so I do have a problem with my code being used for proprietary software. > they have superior collaboration and auditing features What exactly makes GitHub/GitLab better in this aspect than other alternatives? > If I use Jenkins am I any less locked in? I don't know anything about Jenkins, but being able to change your Git host independently of your build service is definitely good.
    - bastardoperator 4y ago
      Yeah, the only people benefitting from the GPL IMHO are lawyers and I'm unwilling to hoist an oppressive license onto my users. Personally, I don't think it's really open source if you're going to make me jump through licensing hoops, and if the hoops are tiny in your opinion, why have them at all? I want people to use my code, I put in the public for consumption, not for the accolades or legal battles... but that's just me. SaaS means I don't have to manage it. I can also in theory collaborate with millions of people versus closed systems like Gitea or Gogs which is what two of the providers you mentioned are built atop. Interestingly enough, both of those projects use GitHub to build GitHub alternatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander? You could easily use repository dispatch with GitHub Actions on self-hosted runners (free) to perform builds on repos that live in other places, since the interface is basically a webhook/payload. The question is why would you? What is the benefit? All of them are using GitOps style practices for the build process, some of them just happen to be a little closer. I'll take YAML over Java/Groovy shared libraries any day of the week. I'd argue that Actions is better than most CI systems.

It uses your code in a paid closed-source service (Copilot), and creates vendor lock-in using proprietary features like GitHub Actions. Not to mention that it's quite absurd for the majority of free software projects to be hosted on a proprietary platform.

bastardoperator 4y ago
It seems to bother you, I don't have any issues with people using code I put into the public domain which I why I use the unlicense. GitHub Actions is YAML based, and the reason most people use a SCM provider like Github or GitLab is because they have superior collaboration and auditing features. At the end of the day no one forces you to use a public repo(copilot) or GitHub Actions. If I use Jenkins am I any less locked in?
- xigoi 4y ago
  > I don't have any issues with people using code I put into the public domain which I why I use the unlicense. Good for you. I use the GNU GPL, so I do have a problem with my code being used for proprietary software. > they have superior collaboration and auditing features What exactly makes GitHub/GitLab better in this aspect than other alternatives? > If I use Jenkins am I any less locked in? I don't know anything about Jenkins, but being able to change your Git host independently of your build service is definitely good.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    Yeah, the only people benefitting from the GPL IMHO are lawyers and I'm unwilling to hoist an oppressive license onto my users. Personally, I don't think it's really open source if you're going to make me jump through licensing hoops, and if the hoops are tiny in your opinion, why have them at all? I want people to use my code, I put in the public for consumption, not for the accolades or legal battles... but that's just me. SaaS means I don't have to manage it. I can also in theory collaborate with millions of people versus closed systems like Gitea or Gogs which is what two of the providers you mentioned are built atop. Interestingly enough, both of those projects use GitHub to build GitHub alternatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander? You could easily use repository dispatch with GitHub Actions on self-hosted runners (free) to perform builds on repos that live in other places, since the interface is basically a webhook/payload. The question is why would you? What is the benefit? All of them are using GitOps style practices for the build process, some of them just happen to be a little closer. I'll take YAML over Java/Groovy shared libraries any day of the week. I'd argue that Actions is better than most CI systems.