Maybe it has done harm to GNU and the GPL, since they have become less relevant. But despite its problems, GitHub has been a huge net positive for free software. They considerably lowered the bar for making a project available. SourceForge acted as gatekeepers and rejected projects. With GitHub, anyone could start a project and no-one would look down on you and tell you that your project is not novel enough or whatever.
GitHub also drastically lowered the bar for contributing to free software. Contributing to a project used to mean subscribing to a mailing list, submitting a patch there, and not much would usually happen. With GitHub you fork, submit a PR, get your PR automatically built and unit tested with CI, the project owner can merge your PR with a single button click. It's fine to prefer an e-mail patch workflow, but GitHub has shown that for most of the population, submitting patches through PRs is a much lower bar.
At this point, GitHub is largely unnecessary. Most of the features have been copied and reimplemented better in FLOSS alternatives such as GitLab, Gitea, Gogs, etc. But since they were one of the first, people will stay due to network effects.
> SourceForge acted as gatekeepers and rejected projects.
Did it? I remember starting two projects which made not much sense at all. I vaguely remember the process was automatic then. Has it changed with time?
There is being direct and then there is speaking like an edgy teenager for entirety of your adult life. It's so difficult to take Stallman seriously when he makes these extreme generalisations.
I think he really just speaks his mind, I'm not sure he is trying to be edgy or anything, he always had quite radical ideas and positions. I mean people have been calling him a lunatic for years, he has been fighting for free software and warning people about proprietary software and the obvious risks it carries. Despite being proven right about quite a lot he warned about, people views never really changed about him.
I can second this. While there are a lot of developers out there who respectfully and objectively push free software forward, Stallman looks more like a maniac preacher to me. His extreme views and statements are more annoying for me, than helpful.
If Free Software was a religion like Christianity, Stallman would probably be called an extremist preacher.
This is just RMS being consistent. He's never liked non-GNU licenses, and considers anything that allows the use of open source code in closed source projects to be the spawn of the devil. He'll continue saying this until his dying breath.
That said, GNU and the GPL have been very helpful, sometimes instrumental, in fostering and protecting open source code and developers, so I'll put up with his ivory tower vision for the practical benefits it's brought us.
Call him crazy (and he probably is), but he's been a net benefit to society, which is a lot more than most achieve.
> considers anything that allows the use of open source code in closed source projects to be the spawn of the devil. He'll continue saying this until his dying breath.
I claim that RMS has never said anything like that, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
He’s consistently said that it’s better if software was copylefted (like GPL) than if it was simply free software (like BSD), but he has consistently reserved the, like you say, “spawn of the devil”-type categorization for proprietary software and worse, like malware, etc.
GitHub probably did more good for the FOSS community than any other project I can think of. Before GitHub, it was so difficult to share code. Solutions available weren't anywhere close. I don't understand why he wants every little piece of software to be open sourced. GitHub was attractive to investors because it had closed source projects that have to pay in order to use it. I don't see how GitHub was going to succeed if they were purely open source and no-one was paying to use it. Those proprietary projects that he so hates are the ones who were keeping the lights on. They are the ones which were giving Investors hope than GitHub will make lots of money in future and they must invest more.
Both google code and sourceforge existed before GitHub. I'd say the experience wasn't streamlined for collaboration like today, but it was definitely easy to share code if you choose to.
GitHub mainly flipped the default view from "project description, forums, and downloads" to "code" which was the massive change.
If you wanted to use that little piece of code, wouldn't it be better if it was open source?
I remember when you could only get exe and projects didnt even think of sharing the code, even if it was just some small project.
Without RMS most of the software you are currently using wouldn't work. He has orthodox manners and is an extremist for freedom but "terrible harm" is a lie.
I think the reasoning is that you can host projects on GitHub without them being FLOSS, since you can just start a repository and add code without ever adding a license. If you do not add a license, it is just copyrighted code, and cannot be redistributed freely.
Some repositories take this to the extreme. There are some closed source software vendors that use GitHub as an issue tracker and collection of Markdown files.
If GitHub wants to permit such uses - it's their party.
Seems a weird sentiment to me. GitHub, as is, is largely a throw back to an older time that RMS sought to recreate. when people just wanted to share code, without much motive beyond that.
> GitHub's encouragement of sloppy licensing, no licensing, or licensing under only a single version of the GPL, has done terrible harm to our community.
There's many projects out there that are meant to be open source, but the author never put a license on it, so it's, legally speaking, "all rights reserve" and you aren'y even allowed to use the software yourself. Github doesn't really encourage this; in fact, it even offers initializing a new repo with a license, but it still happens that project owners just don't
> GitHub was so bad for free software, all along, that I could imagine Microsoft's making it less bad
First of all, this is obviously just his opinion; I can't really attack or defend it like "good" or "bad" are some sort of mathematical constants. The fact is: github does serve as a platform for non-free software (heck, every single one of my projects is either MIT or public domain, which means it can be put into a closed-source project), so if your ultimate goal is for all software to be "free" in the FSF sense, then yes, github has caused much harm.
> We should judge by what actually happens, not by prejudice.
This statement is so obviously correct, there's just no way you could interpret it in any unreasonable way.
While GitHub encourages licensing and even help users with a dedicated menu for it they don't enforce it or help in making licensing decisions which in the eyes or RMS (Richard Matthew Stallman) is bad
> GitHub's encouragement of sloppy licensing, no licensing, or licensing
under only a single version of the GPL, has done terrible harm to our
community.
> GitHub was so bad for free software, all along, that I could imagine
Microsoft's making it less bad, or making it more bad. We should
judge by what actually happens, not by prejudice.
> Keep in mind that Apple is much worse than Microsoft.
The title this thread "Github has done terrible harm to our
community." is a very selective quote.
It did, by making Git a monoculture. It's very difficult to get a project to take off if it's not on Github. When Github goes down, so do the majority of important projects, breaking builds and causing chaos across the developer world. It didn't have to be like this. Git hosting should've been distributed like GNU Social/Mastodon.
A handler now? The linked article is classic RMS: pedantic, relentless, and reasoning so nuanced to the point of being indecipherable if not imperceptible to all but the few who have spent countless hours wrestling with RMS' ideas.
If you assume RMS is smarter than you, or at least more analytically rigorous (like a computer)[1], then you'd be hard pressed to find anything RMS has said which isn't consistent with the entire body of his thinking--including his opinions on certain age-related matters and his recognition of and apology for the insensitive manner in which he expressed them. Which isn't to say you would consequentially agree with him, just that his reasoning is about as impeccable as is possible for such insoluble human social issues. You almost always end up having to wrestle with and reject his premises, which can be difficult because his premises are often agreeable on their face. But by doing so you develop and strengthen your own views. RMS is like Socrates, a pacemaker in a race, or the Energizer Bunny--absolutely exhausting, but if you're disengaging then more likely than not you're the one falling behind, not him. Which is fine--the biggest premise of all is that any of this matters, and if you have your doubts it's impossible to match his stamina; just don't pretend like he's the one slowing down or tripping up.
[1] I want to say that one should simply apply the HN rule of assuming the best version of the argument. But RMS almost always puts forth the best version of the argument, at least from a logical perspective, though certainly not necessarily a rhetorical perspective. Thus with RMS the better habit is assuming he's smarter than you, regardless of whether that's true or not, as it forces you to identify and trace the elements and threads of his reasoning, which are invariably present in plain sight.
There is some awful stuff in that thread, like this gem [1]:
After microsoft puchased Github, they encouraged "Codes of Conduct".
So now 40k "opensource projects" hace CoC's.
Obviously men won't be contributing to said projects, other than
the people allready in them.
Take a look, for example, at the "contributor covenant", which github endorses [1]. It lists as its first example of unacceptable behavior:
> The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
This is a perfect example of rules that are simply too broad. Say I write a comment `//normalize file path because fuck windows`. I said fuck; does this count as "sexualized language"? Do I need to be banned over this?
Also, a more "fun fact" example (from the same document):
> Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
Did anybody consider that this is excluding psychopaths from the community based on a psychological condition? They are, by definition, unable to feel empathy. So much for inclusivity, I guess.
Obviously it's hyperbole - but a lot of people are definitely put off by coc, myself included. It's a wretched, insidious text sneaked in by very bad actors into mainstream open source repositories.
Imagine doing the wonderful things RMS did in the past, being a hero of both FOSS and software in general. Imagine then being remembered for the ahole tricks that came later instead.
Github opened up both software and FOSS to me. I found projects despite not having a computer science education, not working full time in software, not having a personal network of academic buddies, not using irc. Very occasionally I contributed, and my submissions were taken on the value of the bugs I fixed, despite my lack of reputation.
RMS is a gatekeeping mysogynist pxxxx. He is failing to damage the community despite his best efforts because he has marginalised himself by his behaviour.
Ps. I haven't started a repo on github in a while, but I firmly remember it suggesting you add a license, and linking to explanations of the different licences. Did RMS want them to force it on you?
[+] [-] microtonal|6 years ago|reply
GitHub also drastically lowered the bar for contributing to free software. Contributing to a project used to mean subscribing to a mailing list, submitting a patch there, and not much would usually happen. With GitHub you fork, submit a PR, get your PR automatically built and unit tested with CI, the project owner can merge your PR with a single button click. It's fine to prefer an e-mail patch workflow, but GitHub has shown that for most of the population, submitting patches through PRs is a much lower bar.
At this point, GitHub is largely unnecessary. Most of the features have been copied and reimplemented better in FLOSS alternatives such as GitLab, Gitea, Gogs, etc. But since they were one of the first, people will stay due to network effects.
[+] [-] viraptor|6 years ago|reply
Did it? I remember starting two projects which made not much sense at all. I vaguely remember the process was automatic then. Has it changed with time?
[+] [-] psv1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsukurimashou|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kovah|6 years ago|reply
If Free Software was a religion like Christianity, Stallman would probably be called an extremist preacher.
[+] [-] de_watcher|6 years ago|reply
It would look very reasonable on Twitter or Reddit. (of course he doesn't use that)
[+] [-] kstenerud|6 years ago|reply
That said, GNU and the GPL have been very helpful, sometimes instrumental, in fostering and protecting open source code and developers, so I'll put up with his ivory tower vision for the practical benefits it's brought us.
Call him crazy (and he probably is), but he's been a net benefit to society, which is a lot more than most achieve.
[+] [-] teddyh|6 years ago|reply
I claim that RMS has never said anything like that, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
He’s consistently said that it’s better if software was copylefted (like GPL) than if it was simply free software (like BSD), but he has consistently reserved the, like you say, “spawn of the devil”-type categorization for proprietary software and worse, like malware, etc.
[+] [-] madiathomas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viraptor|6 years ago|reply
GitHub mainly flipped the default view from "project description, forums, and downloads" to "code" which was the massive change.
[+] [-] thethrowboat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blihp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZiiS|6 years ago|reply
He also makes a point that you cannot select "GPLv3 or latter" which is the licence GNU recommends.
[+] [-] em-bee|6 years ago|reply
obviously he prefers "GPL2 or later" and "GPL3 or later"
does github offer that?
[+] [-] lgierth|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naringas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pearjuice|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xwowsersx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robinwassen|6 years ago|reply
This makes more people distribute OSS, and most devs do probably not care as much about OSS licensing as RMS would like and therefore do "mistakes".
RMS has a high horse stance, I think that easier access to OSS is better even though it might come with some side effects.
[+] [-] microtonal|6 years ago|reply
Some repositories take this to the extreme. There are some closed source software vendors that use GitHub as an issue tracker and collection of Markdown files.
If GitHub wants to permit such uses - it's their party.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] farfegnoogin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DarkWiiPlayer|6 years ago|reply
> GitHub's encouragement of sloppy licensing, no licensing, or licensing under only a single version of the GPL, has done terrible harm to our community.
There's many projects out there that are meant to be open source, but the author never put a license on it, so it's, legally speaking, "all rights reserve" and you aren'y even allowed to use the software yourself. Github doesn't really encourage this; in fact, it even offers initializing a new repo with a license, but it still happens that project owners just don't
> GitHub was so bad for free software, all along, that I could imagine Microsoft's making it less bad
First of all, this is obviously just his opinion; I can't really attack or defend it like "good" or "bad" are some sort of mathematical constants. The fact is: github does serve as a platform for non-free software (heck, every single one of my projects is either MIT or public domain, which means it can be put into a closed-source project), so if your ultimate goal is for all software to be "free" in the FSF sense, then yes, github has caused much harm.
> We should judge by what actually happens, not by prejudice.
This statement is so obviously correct, there's just no way you could interpret it in any unreasonable way.
[+] [-] beenBoutIT|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kburman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rethab|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Snetry|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbdjfjrjvebd|6 years ago|reply
> GitHub was so bad for free software, all along, that I could imagine Microsoft's making it less bad, or making it more bad. We should judge by what actually happens, not by prejudice.
> Keep in mind that Apple is much worse than Microsoft.
The title this thread "Github has done terrible harm to our community." is a very selective quote.
[+] [-] Grue3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ngcc_hk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mk3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarejunba|6 years ago|reply
But now he needs a handler. My god, man. Get it together.
[+] [-] wahern|6 years ago|reply
If you assume RMS is smarter than you, or at least more analytically rigorous (like a computer)[1], then you'd be hard pressed to find anything RMS has said which isn't consistent with the entire body of his thinking--including his opinions on certain age-related matters and his recognition of and apology for the insensitive manner in which he expressed them. Which isn't to say you would consequentially agree with him, just that his reasoning is about as impeccable as is possible for such insoluble human social issues. You almost always end up having to wrestle with and reject his premises, which can be difficult because his premises are often agreeable on their face. But by doing so you develop and strengthen your own views. RMS is like Socrates, a pacemaker in a race, or the Energizer Bunny--absolutely exhausting, but if you're disengaging then more likely than not you're the one falling behind, not him. Which is fine--the biggest premise of all is that any of this matters, and if you have your doubts it's impossible to match his stamina; just don't pretend like he's the one slowing down or tripping up.
[1] I want to say that one should simply apply the HN rule of assuming the best version of the argument. But RMS almost always puts forth the best version of the argument, at least from a logical perspective, though certainly not necessarily a rhetorical perspective. Thus with RMS the better habit is assuming he's smarter than you, regardless of whether that's true or not, as it forces you to identify and trace the elements and threads of his reasoning, which are invariably present in plain sight.
[+] [-] wichert|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DarkWiiPlayer|6 years ago|reply
> The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
This is a perfect example of rules that are simply too broad. Say I write a comment `//normalize file path because fuck windows`. I said fuck; does this count as "sexualized language"? Do I need to be banned over this?
Also, a more "fun fact" example (from the same document):
> Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
Did anybody consider that this is excluding psychopaths from the community based on a psychological condition? They are, by definition, unable to feel empathy. So much for inclusivity, I guess.
[1] https://opensource.guide/code-of-conduct/
[+] [-] dbdjfjrjvebd|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiotapia|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimnotgym|6 years ago|reply
Imagine doing the wonderful things RMS did in the past, being a hero of both FOSS and software in general. Imagine then being remembered for the ahole tricks that came later instead.
Github opened up both software and FOSS to me. I found projects despite not having a computer science education, not working full time in software, not having a personal network of academic buddies, not using irc. Very occasionally I contributed, and my submissions were taken on the value of the bugs I fixed, despite my lack of reputation.
RMS is a gatekeeping mysogynist pxxxx. He is failing to damage the community despite his best efforts because he has marginalised himself by his behaviour.
Ps. I haven't started a repo on github in a while, but I firmly remember it suggesting you add a license, and linking to explanations of the different licences. Did RMS want them to force it on you?