10 ms·

YES! So many old school projects hosted on janky sites that are immeasurably harder to contribute to. Looking forward to getting them all moved. ...as long as

by mizzao 12y ago

YES! So many old school projects hosted on janky sites that are immeasurably harder to contribute to. Looking forward to getting them all moved. ...as long as GitHub doesn't become an evil empire of some sort.

quadrangle 12y ago
GitHub has done a remarkable job at being less evil than many proprietary companies… but they are doing one very annoying thing: actively undermining the free software movement by (A) getting everyone to use their proprietary tools and (B) craftily undermining the GNU GPL and related licenses by making their license-chooser and choosealicense website designed to discourage GPL use.
- geon 12y ago
  On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL in favor of permissive licenses.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    The GPL is designed specifically for programmers, to ensure that they continue to have access to the source they need to hack on projects. Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers?
    - crazypyro 12y ago
      Considering the vast majority of programmers are proprietary programmers, at least for most of their week, I would consider the GPL not designed specifically for all programmers, but rather FOSS programmers, which is a minority on Github (and everywhere else, except highly specific communities). It makes sense for Github to promote other licenses.
      - JoshTriplett 12y ago
        I'm not arguing against that; it does indeed make sense that github promotes licenses that make life easier for proprietary software developers. I'm arguing against the assertion that "On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL".
        rifung 12y ago
        Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? Do you consider "proprietary software developers" to be anyone who develops proprietary software, even if they contribute to open source as well? Because even if you did both I would think you would prefer non GPL code since you wouldn't be restricted in where you can use the code. So again it seems like "on a site by and for programmers it makes sense to discourage GPL" to me, for all except FOSS programmers.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        > Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? See vdaniuk's response in this same thread. Also, just because someone hacks on proprietary software doesn't mean their preference is to hack on proprietary software.
        rifung 12y ago
        Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. As for vdaniuk's response, I read it and I dont see what value it adds. The comment basically said overall GPL is good, without any explanation. Obviously I dont disagree that its good but dont see why one would encourage it over MIT or BSD.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        > Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. If there's a competing library under a permissive license with mostly the same functionality, the GPLed version doesn't really help. The point of the GPL is to create an ecosystem of software with compelling functionality that makes it much easier (and more fun) to hack on Free Software than proprietary software. And if you're hacking on proprietary software, repeatedly encountering GPLed libraries you could be using instead of recreating their functionality from scratch makes it easier to make a case to management that maybe the thing you're working on shouldn't be proprietary after all, as well as making it more tempting to change what you're working on.
    - brandonwamboldt 12y ago
      I think you're wrong. GPL is designed specifically for FOSS programmers who work only on FOSS projects. Legally, it's a restrictive license that limits options for developers who develop for a day job (for a company that keeps their software proprietary). The BSD and MIT licenses are far superior for the average working dev.
      - vdaniuk 12y ago
        Look, individually BSD and MIT licenses are superior for an "average" programmer, however all programmers and users would be much worse off without GPL.
      - marssaxman 12y ago
        What are you talking about? If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. No, if I'm going to give my code away, it's going to be "share and share alike", and that's what the GPL does best. How would it be "superior" to give my code away in a manner that lets other people take advantage without sharing?
        maxlybbert 12y ago
        > If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. There are several reasons to give away code. It's perfectly reasonable to want people to share improvements with you, in which case the GPL is the right choice. But it's also reasonable to just not care what happens to the code after you send it off, in which case the GPL is likely to be as much a burden on you as on downstream programmers. Using Stallman's terminology, the GPL prevents people from boarding your code, but it also prevents them from using it with incompatible open source licenses (say, licenses with an advertising clause or a choice of law clause) without special permission. I just don't get all that worked up over whether somebody wants to use the Apache license version 1.1.
    - maxlybbert 12y ago
      > Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers? I've never noticed a shortage of GPLed projects on Github. But I think it would make sense for Github to nudge programmers into choosing licenses other than the GPL. When I start a project, I appreciate the ability to build off of permissively licensed libraries. At the least, it means that I don't have to worry about various pretend lawyers wasting my time with emails about how the GPL handles some edge case.
    - dec0dedab0de 12y ago
      I think the GPL is more designed for end users who happen to know how to program.
  - guelo 12y ago
    Permissiveness is relative. GPL restricts developers from restricting the code. GPL code cannot be restricted, it is and always will be free. GPL is extremely permissive to code. "You can take my code and do anything you want with it. A person that gets the code from you can also do anything they want with it."
- lucian1900 12y ago
  For (B), that's a good thing. Nowadays, the GPL merely prevents software from having widespread use.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Bizarre claim. Doesn't seem to have affected Linux/Android or git itself from achieving widespread use.
    - cocoablazing 12y ago
      Platforms versus modules.
      - Crito 12y ago
        What is that supposed to mean? Software is software, and a great deal of GPL software is currently in the hands of consumers.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Terribly reductive. An operating system is not a library is not a toy program. A great deal of (good!) proprietary software is currently in the hands of consumers too. So?
        Crito 12y ago
        I think you might be responding to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything about proprietary software, or about one being better or worse than another.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Nope. What is that supposed to mean? Software is software Different classes of software exist with different licensing concerns.
- tomswartz07 12y ago
  Can you give examples of each? Last I saw, they only (rarely) show that they have a 'GitHub Client for Win and OSX'. Command line interface and all other Git tools are usable. Hell- when you create a new, empty repo they give you the commands to type into your terminal to upload from there.
- brandonwamboldt 12y ago
  I disagree about point A. GitHub as a whole is proprietary, but they have an exceptionally well designed API that can be used to export issues, pull requests, and wiki data. I setup a cron to backup this data weekly in case of a catastrophic github data loss event. There are multiple open source tools to get this meta data. I'm pretty sure there is a tool to transfer a GitHub repo and all meta data to GitLab (which is open source).
  - sytse 12y ago
    For sure, GitLab has a GitHub importer that transfers the repo and issues.
  - motters 12y ago
    My current strategy is to host on Github and mirror to Gogs on my own server. I might eventually swap that around. There are advantages to Github in terms of the number of eyeballs and ability to search, but I expect that it will go the way of all proprietary systems and probably will start becoming evil sooner or later. Developers have faith in Github in the same manner that they once had faith in Google and Google Code.
    - steffan 12y ago
      > Developers have faith in Github in the same manner that they once had faith in Google and Google Code. That's a good point, but Google Code was never a core business of Google. Github would have to undergo a serious shift before hosting code repos isn't a core business function.
      - ta0967 12y ago
        Google Code was never a core business of Google. The free-as-in-beer parts of github.com are not (guaranteed to be) a core business of Github either. Just look how lousy Atlassian is with bitbucket.org; their core business is Stash.
        Karunamon 12y ago
- Karunamon 12y ago
  I think you'll find there are few arguments to be made for the open-ness of the platform (except for the religious ones) when data export is central to the platform's reason for existsnce. Github without distributed commits isn't based on git anymore, and the other stuff is ancillary (and also easily exportable) designed to discourage GPL use What the hell are you on about? From choosealicense: The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations. Linux, Git, and WordPress use the GPL. This is in the middle of the front page [1]. What is discouraging or inaccurate about this? Furthermore, the license chooser under the new repo page has the GPL as the second friggin' option [2]. Acerbic? Yes, but I don't appreciate people peddling lies. [1] http://grab.by/FSI8 http://grab.by/FSI8 [2] http://grab.by/FSIg http://grab.by/FSIg
  - josinalvo 12y ago
    I think the text for GPL is much more discouraging than the others ... How about: "The GPL (V2 or V3) requires anyone who distributes your code - or a derivative work - to make the source available. V3 is similar to V2, but it also demands that, whenever the code comes "pre-installed" in a device, the user can run a modified version in the device" Or even: "The GPL (V2 or V3) requires anyone who distributes your code - or a derivative work - to make the source available. V3 is similar to V2. Only worry about the difference for code that comes "pre-installed" in a device"
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Those edits are completely insubstantial. #1 is basically s/restrict/demand. #2 completely obscures the actual differences with a "don't worry about it" handwave. The GPL is objectively a more restrictive license than BSD/MIT/Apache - just because you think the word "restricted" is ugly doesn't change this rather uncontroversial fact.
      - josinalvo 12y ago
        the GPL restricts the developer more and forbids restrictions on the user. Just saying it is more "restrictive" does not clarify that (and yes. If you dont know if you want MIT or GPL, "dont worry about" V2 vs V3)
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  I don't feel that they're actively underminding the GPL. I feel that they're presenting the options fairly as to what the pros and cons are for each license. Now, I'd be curious as to see if metrics would change for each license if they were to randomize the locations of the "big three", so as to give no evidence of being biased.
- city41 12y ago
  I don't think GPL needs discouragement, the dev community in large has decided they just don't like copyleft. I appreciate all that Stallman has done, but his ideas and practicality don't always align.
  - frenchy 12y ago
    Speak for yourself...
    - city41 12y ago
      I'm simply speaking for the majority. For example: https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-gi... -- GPL 2 and 3 make up 20% of Github projects, with MIT being more than twice that.
      - frenchy 12y ago
        Many open source projects are not on github.
        city41 12y ago
        This is a pretty interesting article [1]. Out of GitHub, SourceForge, CodePlex and the Apache Foundation, SourceForge is largely GPL but the rest largely are not. According to Wikipedia, SourceForge hosts about 300,000 projects, and GitHub has 10 million as of December 2013. I still have pretty strong confidence that the majority of open source projects are not GPL'd. [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTg4NDY http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTg4NDY
        belorn 12y ago
        A larger majority (>80%) of packaged programs in Debian, Ubuntu and redhat is GPL. If you look at what people actually use in their servers or open source desktops, then the majority will be GPL. One conclusions reached from this is that people tend to not care about licensing when they just want to push this weekends freshly created project into github, which result in the MIT license getting higher statistics in github compared to repositories with some quality requirements. One can also assume that uploading things to github is much easier that SourceForge, and people use github as a development platform instead of a pure publishing platform.
ta0967 12y ago
It need not become one to be a problem (just as it is a boon). The benefit of frictionless contributions is real, the problem of loss of federation is real just as much, and leads to the loss of community. We're animals. The feeling of community arises when we're not alone yet feel being in private. Community is us (versus the rest). Github is a faceless "everybody" (vs. nobody left), which on the animal level translates to "me" (vs. everybody else). It was easier to maintain a tiny community in the times of janky sites with mailing lists and diffs emailed around. Github gives you access to a larger pool of potential drive-by contributors, but you can't create a loose ring of a handful of people in /issues and /pulls. The community arises through people joining, and then failing to leave, a mailing list, and then contributing to the project through occasional replies to questions asked by beginners. There may be seven long-term subscribers to your niche project's mailing list. When a newcomer shows up with a question, one of them might answer it before you get up. And even if they don't, their continuing passive presence on the list is still a currency that helps you push the niche project further. Stars on a github.com repository just don't carry that much weight. Seven people might star your niche project repo. If they use their "dashboards", the entry for the new issue (the newcomer asked a support question by filing a ticket since you have no janky old school mailing list) got lost among the other tens and hundreds (even thousands) entries for individual commits and comments in repos those people have starred beside yours. They won't answer that support call for you. And, even if they did, they won't feel being part of any niche project's community either: it was just a drive-by comment on a random issue they spotted on their feed... tldr: github.com is the largest open-plan office in the world.

by mizzao 12y ago

quadrangle 12y ago

GitHub has done a remarkable job at being less evil than many proprietary companies… but they are doing one very annoying thing: actively undermining the free software movement by (A) getting everyone to use their proprietary tools and (B) craftily undermining the GNU GPL and related licenses by making their license-chooser and choosealicense website designed to discourage GPL use.

geon 12y ago
On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL in favor of permissive licenses.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  The GPL is designed specifically for programmers, to ensure that they continue to have access to the source they need to hack on projects. Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers?
  - crazypyro 12y ago
    Considering the vast majority of programmers are proprietary programmers, at least for most of their week, I would consider the GPL not designed specifically for all programmers, but rather FOSS programmers, which is a minority on Github (and everywhere else, except highly specific communities). It makes sense for Github to promote other licenses.
    - JoshTriplett 12y ago
      I'm not arguing against that; it does indeed make sense that github promotes licenses that make life easier for proprietary software developers. I'm arguing against the assertion that "On a site by and for programmers, it makes sense to discourage GPL".
      - rifung 12y ago
        Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? Do you consider "proprietary software developers" to be anyone who develops proprietary software, even if they contribute to open source as well? Because even if you did both I would think you would prefer non GPL code since you wouldn't be restricted in where you can use the code. So again it seems like "on a site by and for programmers it makes sense to discourage GPL" to me, for all except FOSS programmers.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        > Why would programmers want to promote GPL, if they are not FOSS programmers? See vdaniuk's response in this same thread. Also, just because someone hacks on proprietary software doesn't mean their preference is to hack on proprietary software.
        rifung 12y ago
        Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. As for vdaniuk's response, I read it and I dont see what value it adds. The comment basically said overall GPL is good, without any explanation. Obviously I dont disagree that its good but dont see why one would encourage it over MIT or BSD.
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        > Indeed my preference is definitely not to hack on proprietary software. However if I have to do the same thing I'd prefer not to have to choose and learn how to use two different libraries for example. If there's a competing library under a permissive license with mostly the same functionality, the GPLed version doesn't really help. The point of the GPL is to create an ecosystem of software with compelling functionality that makes it much easier (and more fun) to hack on Free Software than proprietary software. And if you're hacking on proprietary software, repeatedly encountering GPLed libraries you could be using instead of recreating their functionality from scratch makes it easier to make a case to management that maybe the thing you're working on shouldn't be proprietary after all, as well as making it more tempting to change what you're working on.
  - brandonwamboldt 12y ago
    I think you're wrong. GPL is designed specifically for FOSS programmers who work only on FOSS projects. Legally, it's a restrictive license that limits options for developers who develop for a day job (for a company that keeps their software proprietary). The BSD and MIT licenses are far superior for the average working dev.
    - vdaniuk 12y ago
      Look, individually BSD and MIT licenses are superior for an "average" programmer, however all programmers and users would be much worse off without GPL.
    - marssaxman 12y ago
      What are you talking about? If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. No, if I'm going to give my code away, it's going to be "share and share alike", and that's what the GPL does best. How would it be "superior" to give my code away in a manner that lets other people take advantage without sharing?
      - maxlybbert 12y ago
        > If I'm going to give my code away, it's because I want people to use it and share it, and letting downstream devs take my work and close it up for private gain would suck - especially since they're not obligated to share any of their private profits with me. There are several reasons to give away code. It's perfectly reasonable to want people to share improvements with you, in which case the GPL is the right choice. But it's also reasonable to just not care what happens to the code after you send it off, in which case the GPL is likely to be as much a burden on you as on downstream programmers. Using Stallman's terminology, the GPL prevents people from boarding your code, but it also prevents them from using it with incompatible open source licenses (say, licenses with an advertising clause or a choice of law clause) without special permission. I just don't get all that worked up over whether somebody wants to use the Apache license version 1.1.
  - maxlybbert 12y ago
    > Perhaps you meant on a site that's designed to also serve the needs of proprietary programmers, as opposed to just FOSS programmers? I've never noticed a shortage of GPLed projects on Github. But I think it would make sense for Github to nudge programmers into choosing licenses other than the GPL. When I start a project, I appreciate the ability to build off of permissively licensed libraries. At the least, it means that I don't have to worry about various pretend lawyers wasting my time with emails about how the GPL handles some edge case.
  - dec0dedab0de 12y ago
    I think the GPL is more designed for end users who happen to know how to program.
- guelo 12y ago
  Permissiveness is relative. GPL restricts developers from restricting the code. GPL code cannot be restricted, it is and always will be free. GPL is extremely permissive to code. "You can take my code and do anything you want with it. A person that gets the code from you can also do anything they want with it."
lucian1900 12y ago
For (B), that's a good thing. Nowadays, the GPL merely prevents software from having widespread use.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Bizarre claim. Doesn't seem to have affected Linux/Android or git itself from achieving widespread use.
  - cocoablazing 12y ago
    Platforms versus modules.
    - Crito 12y ago
      What is that supposed to mean? Software is software, and a great deal of GPL software is currently in the hands of consumers.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        Terribly reductive. An operating system is not a library is not a toy program. A great deal of (good!) proprietary software is currently in the hands of consumers too. So?
        Crito 12y ago
        I think you might be responding to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything about proprietary software, or about one being better or worse than another.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Nope. What is that supposed to mean? Software is software Different classes of software exist with different licensing concerns.
tomswartz07 12y ago
Can you give examples of each? Last I saw, they only (rarely) show that they have a 'GitHub Client for Win and OSX'. Command line interface and all other Git tools are usable. Hell- when you create a new, empty repo they give you the commands to type into your terminal to upload from there.
brandonwamboldt 12y ago
I disagree about point A. GitHub as a whole is proprietary, but they have an exceptionally well designed API that can be used to export issues, pull requests, and wiki data. I setup a cron to backup this data weekly in case of a catastrophic github data loss event. There are multiple open source tools to get this meta data. I'm pretty sure there is a tool to transfer a GitHub repo and all meta data to GitLab (which is open source).
- sytse 12y ago
  For sure, GitLab has a GitHub importer that transfers the repo and issues.
- motters 12y ago
  My current strategy is to host on Github and mirror to Gogs on my own server. I might eventually swap that around. There are advantages to Github in terms of the number of eyeballs and ability to search, but I expect that it will go the way of all proprietary systems and probably will start becoming evil sooner or later. Developers have faith in Github in the same manner that they once had faith in Google and Google Code.
  - steffan 12y ago
    > Developers have faith in Github in the same manner that they once had faith in Google and Google Code. That's a good point, but Google Code was never a core business of Google. Github would have to undergo a serious shift before hosting code repos isn't a core business function.
    - ta0967 12y ago
      Google Code was never a core business of Google. The free-as-in-beer parts of github.com are not (guaranteed to be) a core business of Github either. Just look how lousy Atlassian is with bitbucket.org; their core business is Stash.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
Karunamon 12y ago
I think you'll find there are few arguments to be made for the open-ness of the platform (except for the religious ones) when data export is central to the platform's reason for existsnce. Github without distributed commits isn't based on git anymore, and the other stuff is ancillary (and also easily exportable) designed to discourage GPL use What the hell are you on about? From choosealicense: The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations. Linux, Git, and WordPress use the GPL. This is in the middle of the front page [1]. What is discouraging or inaccurate about this? Furthermore, the license chooser under the new repo page has the GPL as the second friggin' option [2]. Acerbic? Yes, but I don't appreciate people peddling lies. [1] http://grab.by/FSI8 http://grab.by/FSI8 [2] http://grab.by/FSIg http://grab.by/FSIg
- josinalvo 12y ago
  I think the text for GPL is much more discouraging than the others ... How about: "The GPL (V2 or V3) requires anyone who distributes your code - or a derivative work - to make the source available. V3 is similar to V2, but it also demands that, whenever the code comes "pre-installed" in a device, the user can run a modified version in the device" Or even: "The GPL (V2 or V3) requires anyone who distributes your code - or a derivative work - to make the source available. V3 is similar to V2. Only worry about the difference for code that comes "pre-installed" in a device"
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Those edits are completely insubstantial. #1 is basically s/restrict/demand. #2 completely obscures the actual differences with a "don't worry about it" handwave. The GPL is objectively a more restrictive license than BSD/MIT/Apache - just because you think the word "restricted" is ugly doesn't change this rather uncontroversial fact.
    - josinalvo 12y ago
      the GPL restricts the developer more and forbids restrictions on the user. Just saying it is more "restrictive" does not clarify that (and yes. If you dont know if you want MIT or GPL, "dont worry about" V2 vs V3)
Sanddancer 12y ago
I don't feel that they're actively underminding the GPL. I feel that they're presenting the options fairly as to what the pros and cons are for each license. Now, I'd be curious as to see if metrics would change for each license if they were to randomize the locations of the "big three", so as to give no evidence of being biased.
city41 12y ago
I don't think GPL needs discouragement, the dev community in large has decided they just don't like copyleft. I appreciate all that Stallman has done, but his ideas and practicality don't always align.
- frenchy 12y ago
  Speak for yourself...
  - city41 12y ago
    I'm simply speaking for the majority. For example: https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com https://github.com/blog/1964-open-source-license-usage-on-gi... -- GPL 2 and 3 make up 20% of Github projects, with MIT being more than twice that.
    - frenchy 12y ago
      Many open source projects are not on github.
      - city41 12y ago
        This is a pretty interesting article [1]. Out of GitHub, SourceForge, CodePlex and the Apache Foundation, SourceForge is largely GPL but the rest largely are not. According to Wikipedia, SourceForge hosts about 300,000 projects, and GitHub has 10 million as of December 2013. I still have pretty strong confidence that the majority of open source projects are not GPL'd. [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTg4NDY http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTg4NDY
        belorn 12y ago
        A larger majority (>80%) of packaged programs in Debian, Ubuntu and redhat is GPL. If you look at what people actually use in their servers or open source desktops, then the majority will be GPL. One conclusions reached from this is that people tend to not care about licensing when they just want to push this weekends freshly created project into github, which result in the MIT license getting higher statistics in github compared to repositories with some quality requirements. One can also assume that uploading things to github is much easier that SourceForge, and people use github as a development platform instead of a pure publishing platform.

ta0967 12y ago

It need not become one to be a problem (just as it is a boon). The benefit of frictionless contributions is real, the problem of loss of federation is real just as much, and leads to the loss of community. We're animals. The feeling of community arises when we're not alone yet feel being in private. Community is us (versus the rest). Github is a faceless "everybody" (vs. nobody left), which on the animal level translates to "me" (vs. everybody else). It was easier to maintain a tiny community in the times of janky sites with mailing lists and diffs emailed around. Github gives you access to a larger pool of potential drive-by contributors, but you can't create a loose ring of a handful of people in /issues and /pulls. The community arises through people joining, and then failing to leave, a mailing list, and then contributing to the project through occasional replies to questions asked by beginners. There may be seven long-term subscribers to your niche project's mailing list. When a newcomer shows up with a question, one of them might answer it before you get up. And even if they don't, their continuing passive presence on the list is still a currency that helps you push the niche project further. Stars on a github.com repository just don't carry that much weight. Seven people might star your niche project repo. If they use their "dashboards", the entry for the new issue (the newcomer asked a support question by filing a ticket since you have no janky old school mailing list) got lost among the other tens and hundreds (even thousands) entries for individual commits and comments in repos those people have starred beside yours. They won't answer that support call for you. And, even if they did, they won't feel being part of any niche project's community either: it was just a drive-by comment on a random issue they spotted on their feed... tldr: github.com is the largest open-plan office in the world.