6 ms·

Unrelated, but TIL Drew DeVault is one of the SourceHut maintainers. His blog[0] is strongly opinionated and always an informative read. [0] https://drewdevaul

Unrelated, but TIL Drew DeVault is one of the SourceHut maintainers. His blog[0] is strongly opinionated and always an informative read. [0] https://drewdevault.com/ https://drewdevault.com/

mortallywounded 3y ago
Maintainer? More like creator.
- trevyn 3y ago
  Opinionated? More like firebrand.
- otachack 3y ago
  ¿Por qué no los dos?
- j4yav 3y ago
  Arent open source project maintainers typically the creators?
matthews2 3y ago
You don't need to agree with all of his opinions to use SourceHut :) I'm not a big fan of some of his hot takes, but I still respect him and trust him with my data.
- sneak 3y ago
  The reason I don’t use srht is because of his opinions about product development (of srht itself), not his personal opinions. Social/collaboration features are explicitly deprioritized by design; I think this is a natural consequence of srht being built by and for lone wolf developers. GitHub and Gitea (which is basically a github clone) seem much more geared toward collaboration by groups, something most small-time f/oss developers don’t need. Also, the emphasis on email and irc is bad, imo. The web won because it is better. A lot of the anti-web stuff is just tradition.
  - tslocum 3y ago
    As someone who was there in the early days, who joined the chorus of people warning Drew about the effects of such a policy, I just want to say that Forgejo is a treat to self-host and use. Gitea is now open-core, and its future is unclear. https://forgejo.org https://forgejo.org
    - zufallsheld 3y ago
      The only mention I can find that gitea is open core comes from forgejo. Do you have some kind of proof that there are parts of gitea that are not MIT licensed?
      - radlad 3y ago
        Gitea Ltd's stance seems to be that it does "custom development" support contracts.[0] It may be a matter of perspective whether you consider this "open-core" or "contract work." See also their clarifications on Gitea the company[1]: > Gitea Ltd. will be open to building special versions for special clients and will contribute any features back to the main repository when possible This was in a followup to the original announcement.[2] Forgejo (i.e. Codeberg, a FOSS non-profit) maintains that the project should be led by the community, not a company[3]: > Sadly, Gitea Ltd broke that trust by a lack of transparency: its existence was kept a secret during months. After the initial announcement, Gitea Ltd published another blog post but it was still vague and there has been no other communication since. Who are the Gitea Ltd shareholders? Who, among the Gitea maintainers, are employees of Gitea Ltd? [0] https://about.gitea.com/pricing/ https://about.gitea.com/pricing/ [1] https://blog.gitea.com/a-message-from-lunny-on-gitea-ltd.-and-the-gitea-project https://blog.gitea.com/a-message-from-lunny-on-gitea-ltd.-an... [2] https://blog.gitea.com/open-source-sustainment/ https://blog.gitea.com/open-source-sustainment/ [3] https://blog.codeberg.org/codeberg-launches-forgejo.html https://blog.codeberg.org/codeberg-launches-forgejo.html
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - 3y ago
- gray_-_wolf 3y ago
  I stopped paying for sourcehut because his opinions are relevant here since he bans types of projects based on them. You never know when another restriction will be added.
  - cornstalks 3y ago
    If you're talking about banning cryptocurrency and blockchain projects, personally that earned some favor in my eyes. I'm happy to use and pay for a service that doesn't contribute to that blight. For the curious, the terms are here: https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#permissible-use https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#permissible-use
    - gray_-_wolf 3y ago
      I also do not like "crypto", but I do not think this type of restriction is great on a paid service. Maybe, maybe it could be argued for public repositories. Or if it was free. But like, why does Drew DeVault care that I would have a private repository with "explicit sexual content"? On an account I pay for? And even if you agree with the current set of restrictions, are you sure it will not be further expanded? I am not.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        > why does Drew DeVault care that I would have a private repository with "explicit sexual content"? For the same reason GitHub does? GitHub's AUP at https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-policies/github-acceptable-use-policies https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici... says: "We do not allow content or activity on GitHub that: ... is sexually obscene or relates to sexual exploitation or abuse, including of minors". Atlassian's AUP at https://www.atlassian.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy https://www.atlassian.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy says "Inappropriate content" includes "Posting, uploading, sharing, submitting, or otherwise providing content that ... Is deceptive, fraudulent, illegal, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, harmful to minors, pornographic (including child pornography, which we will remove and report to law enforcement, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), indecent, harassing, hateful"? GitLab's AUP at https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/legal/acceptable-use-policy/ https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/legal/acceptable-use-po... says "unacceptable use of our services [which] applies to all users of all GitLab services including those on the Free, Premium, and Ultimate GitLab tiers" mean "you must not: Create, upload, submit, execute, transmit, or host anything that ... is vulgar, obscene, or pornographic, or gratuitously depicts or glorifies violence." Now, there are differences between "explicit sexual content", "sexually obscene" and "pornographic", but if you are worried about possible further expansion, you shouldn't use any of these code hosting services.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Unrelated, but TIL Drew DeVault is one of the SourceHut maintainers. His blog[0] is strongly opinionated and always an informative read. [0] https://drewdevault.com/ https://drewdevault.com/

mortallywounded 3y ago

Maintainer? More like creator.

trevyn 3y ago
Opinionated? More like firebrand.
otachack 3y ago
¿Por qué no los dos?
j4yav 3y ago
Arent open source project maintainers typically the creators?

matthews2 3y ago

You don't need to agree with all of his opinions to use SourceHut :) I'm not a big fan of some of his hot takes, but I still respect him and trust him with my data.

sneak 3y ago
The reason I don’t use srht is because of his opinions about product development (of srht itself), not his personal opinions. Social/collaboration features are explicitly deprioritized by design; I think this is a natural consequence of srht being built by and for lone wolf developers. GitHub and Gitea (which is basically a github clone) seem much more geared toward collaboration by groups, something most small-time f/oss developers don’t need. Also, the emphasis on email and irc is bad, imo. The web won because it is better. A lot of the anti-web stuff is just tradition.
- tslocum 3y ago
  As someone who was there in the early days, who joined the chorus of people warning Drew about the effects of such a policy, I just want to say that Forgejo is a treat to self-host and use. Gitea is now open-core, and its future is unclear. https://forgejo.org https://forgejo.org
  - zufallsheld 3y ago
    The only mention I can find that gitea is open core comes from forgejo. Do you have some kind of proof that there are parts of gitea that are not MIT licensed?
    - radlad 3y ago
      Gitea Ltd's stance seems to be that it does "custom development" support contracts.[0] It may be a matter of perspective whether you consider this "open-core" or "contract work." See also their clarifications on Gitea the company[1]: > Gitea Ltd. will be open to building special versions for special clients and will contribute any features back to the main repository when possible This was in a followup to the original announcement.[2] Forgejo (i.e. Codeberg, a FOSS non-profit) maintains that the project should be led by the community, not a company[3]: > Sadly, Gitea Ltd broke that trust by a lack of transparency: its existence was kept a secret during months. After the initial announcement, Gitea Ltd published another blog post but it was still vague and there has been no other communication since. Who are the Gitea Ltd shareholders? Who, among the Gitea maintainers, are employees of Gitea Ltd? [0] https://about.gitea.com/pricing/ https://about.gitea.com/pricing/ [1] https://blog.gitea.com/a-message-from-lunny-on-gitea-ltd.-and-the-gitea-project https://blog.gitea.com/a-message-from-lunny-on-gitea-ltd.-an... [2] https://blog.gitea.com/open-source-sustainment/ https://blog.gitea.com/open-source-sustainment/ [3] https://blog.codeberg.org/codeberg-launches-forgejo.html https://blog.codeberg.org/codeberg-launches-forgejo.html
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - 3y ago
gray_-_wolf 3y ago
I stopped paying for sourcehut because his opinions are relevant here since he bans types of projects based on them. You never know when another restriction will be added.
- cornstalks 3y ago
  If you're talking about banning cryptocurrency and blockchain projects, personally that earned some favor in my eyes. I'm happy to use and pay for a service that doesn't contribute to that blight. For the curious, the terms are here: https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#permissible-use https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#permissible-use
  - gray_-_wolf 3y ago
    I also do not like "crypto", but I do not think this type of restriction is great on a paid service. Maybe, maybe it could be argued for public repositories. Or if it was free. But like, why does Drew DeVault care that I would have a private repository with "explicit sexual content"? On an account I pay for? And even if you agree with the current set of restrictions, are you sure it will not be further expanded? I am not.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      > why does Drew DeVault care that I would have a private repository with "explicit sexual content"? For the same reason GitHub does? GitHub's AUP at https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-policies/github-acceptable-use-policies https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici... says: "We do not allow content or activity on GitHub that: ... is sexually obscene or relates to sexual exploitation or abuse, including of minors". Atlassian's AUP at https://www.atlassian.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy https://www.atlassian.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy says "Inappropriate content" includes "Posting, uploading, sharing, submitting, or otherwise providing content that ... Is deceptive, fraudulent, illegal, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, harmful to minors, pornographic (including child pornography, which we will remove and report to law enforcement, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), indecent, harassing, hateful"? GitLab's AUP at https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/legal/acceptable-use-policy/ https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/legal/acceptable-use-po... says "unacceptable use of our services [which] applies to all users of all GitLab services including those on the Free, Premium, and Ultimate GitLab tiers" mean "you must not: Create, upload, submit, execute, transmit, or host anything that ... is vulgar, obscene, or pornographic, or gratuitously depicts or glorifies violence." Now, there are differences between "explicit sexual content", "sexually obscene" and "pornographic", but if you are worried about possible further expansion, you shouldn't use any of these code hosting services.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]