3 ms·

Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If

Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If you only have a personal homepage and nothing else that is open source, then they have a problem. My 2 cents.

noirscape 7mo ago
Which makes it not really a suitable replacement for GitHub, which is my entire point. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Codeberg is bad, but it's terms of use are pretty clear in the sense that they only really want FOSS and anyone who has something other than FOSS better look elsewhere. GitHub allowed you to basically put up anything that's "yours" and the license wasn't really their concern - that isn't the case with Codeberg. It's not about price or anything either; it'd be fine if the offer was "either give us 5$ for the privilege of private repositories or only publish and contribute public FOSS code" - I'm fine paying cash for that if need be. One of the big draws of GitHub (and what got me to properly learn git) back in the day with GitHub Pages in particular was "I can write an HTML page, do a git push and anyone can see it". Then you throw on top an SSG (GitHub had out of the box support for Jekyll, but back then you could rig Travis CI up for other page generators if you knew what you were doing), and with a bit of technical knowledge, anyone could host a blog without the full on server stack. Codeberg cannot provide that sort of experience with their current terms of service. Even sourcehut has, from what I can tell, a more lenient approach to what they provide (and the only reason why I wouldn't recommend sourcehut as a GitHub replacement is because git-by-email isn't really workable for most people anymore). They encourage FOSS licensing, but from what I can tell don't force it in their platform policies. (The only thing they openly ban is cryptocurrency related projects, which seems fair because cryptocurrency is pretty much always associated with platform abuse.)
- tjoff 7mo ago
  (SSG - static site generator) I mean, it is arguably much easier to just write the HTML page and upload it with FTP and everyone can see it. I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place.
  - radlad 7mo ago
    Because it doesn't require you to run an HTTP server, FTP server, or install an FTP client.
    - tjoff 7mo ago
      Finding an HTTP+FTP server was easier than finding github. Your OS probably has a FTP client installed already, but finding another one is easier than finding and most definitely easier than learning git. And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too.
      - radlad 7mo ago
        This is definitely a matter of perspective. I have had a Github account since 2010, and git comes installed on Linux and macOS. I don't always have a server available to host an HTTP+FTP server on. Or want to pay for one, or spend time setting one up. I can trust that Github Pages will have reasonable uptime, and I won't have to monitor it at all. > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. This seems unnecessarily aggressive, and I don't really understand where it's coming from. BTW, you can absolutely host plain HTML with Github Pages. No SSG required.
      - lazyasciiart 7mo ago
        > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. That's a completely false statement. My kid took very basic programming classes in school which covered HTML so they could build webpages, which is a fantastic instant-results method. Hooray, now the class is finished, he wants to put it on the web. Just like millions of other kids who couldn't even spell FTP.
      - kbolino 7mo ago
        I touched on the issues with FTP itself in another comment, but who can forget the issues with HTTP+FTP, like: modes (644 or 755? wait, what is a umask?), .htaccess, MIME mappings, "why isn't index.html working?", etc. Every place had a different httpd config and a different person you had to email to (hopefully) get it fixed.

noirscape 7mo ago

Which makes it not really a suitable replacement for GitHub, which is my entire point. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Codeberg is bad, but it's terms of use are pretty clear in the sense that they only really want FOSS and anyone who has something other than FOSS better look elsewhere. GitHub allowed you to basically put up anything that's "yours" and the license wasn't really their concern - that isn't the case with Codeberg. It's not about price or anything either; it'd be fine if the offer was "either give us 5$ for the privilege of private repositories or only publish and contribute public FOSS code" - I'm fine paying cash for that if need be. One of the big draws of GitHub (and what got me to properly learn git) back in the day with GitHub Pages in particular was "I can write an HTML page, do a git push and anyone can see it". Then you throw on top an SSG (GitHub had out of the box support for Jekyll, but back then you could rig Travis CI up for other page generators if you knew what you were doing), and with a bit of technical knowledge, anyone could host a blog without the full on server stack. Codeberg cannot provide that sort of experience with their current terms of service. Even sourcehut has, from what I can tell, a more lenient approach to what they provide (and the only reason why I wouldn't recommend sourcehut as a GitHub replacement is because git-by-email isn't really workable for most people anymore). They encourage FOSS licensing, but from what I can tell don't force it in their platform policies. (The only thing they openly ban is cryptocurrency related projects, which seems fair because cryptocurrency is pretty much always associated with platform abuse.)

tjoff 7mo ago
(SSG - static site generator) I mean, it is arguably much easier to just write the HTML page and upload it with FTP and everyone can see it. I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place.
- radlad 7mo ago
  Because it doesn't require you to run an HTTP server, FTP server, or install an FTP client.
  - tjoff 7mo ago
    Finding an HTTP+FTP server was easier than finding github. Your OS probably has a FTP client installed already, but finding another one is easier than finding and most definitely easier than learning git. And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too.
    - radlad 7mo ago
      This is definitely a matter of perspective. I have had a Github account since 2010, and git comes installed on Linux and macOS. I don't always have a server available to host an HTTP+FTP server on. Or want to pay for one, or spend time setting one up. I can trust that Github Pages will have reasonable uptime, and I won't have to monitor it at all. > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. This seems unnecessarily aggressive, and I don't really understand where it's coming from. BTW, you can absolutely host plain HTML with Github Pages. No SSG required.
    - lazyasciiart 7mo ago
      > And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. That's a completely false statement. My kid took very basic programming classes in school which covered HTML so they could build webpages, which is a fantastic instant-results method. Hooray, now the class is finished, he wants to put it on the web. Just like millions of other kids who couldn't even spell FTP.
    - kbolino 7mo ago
      I touched on the issues with FTP itself in another comment, but who can forget the issues with HTTP+FTP, like: modes (644 or 755? wait, what is a umask?), .htaccess, MIME mappings, "why isn't index.html working?", etc. Every place had a different httpd config and a different person you had to email to (hopefully) get it fixed.