Re: Microsoft buys GitHub, is this a threat to open-source - Mailing list pgsql-general

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> On 06/04/2018 10:31 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> No but it does show why using non open source platforms for open source
>>> projects is an inherently bad idea.
>>
>> Joshua,
>>
>>   Sourceforge seems to be out of favor, too, so are there any open source
>> platforms that provide services that sourceforge and github do?
>
> Gitlab which can also be self hosted, the one GNU does (I don't recall
> the name).
>

I find gitLab to be a pretty good alternative. However, I don't think
there is any need to panic. While it is possible (likely?) that MS will
change the terms and conditions which work in favour of maintaining
their profitability, which may cause some problems for particularly
large open source projects, nothing is going to happen over night or so
quickly that projects won't have an opportunity to find an alternative.

There is an alternative perspective to seeing MS purchase of Github
which is a little more positive.

The challenge for open source is that at some point, there is a cost
associated with storage, collaboration and sharing of source code. This
cost has to be paid for by someone. While we can hope for philanthropic
donations and gifts to pay this cost, it probably isn't a sustainable
solution. If on the other hand, there is a profitable business which can
maintain profitability while incorporating open source support as part
of core business, then we may have a more sustainable and reliable
solution.

I am no MS fan and have little experience in the MS suite of products,
but I think most would have to acknowledge that MS has started to
embrace open source far more than it did in the past. Consider for
example their VS Code editor or the fact Windows now comes with a Bash
shell and more integrated support for Linux. I suspect that we will see
little change in Github in the short term and provided MS can maintain
long term profitability, we may see little long-term change as well.

Of course, this only holds for the very relaxed definition of open
source. RMS would/will be using this as a clear example of MS destroying
open source and the weakness of the general open source movement when it
fails to emphasise freedom. For a strict open source definition which
emphasises freedom rather than just 'openness', Github would likely
already be ruled out due to their restrictive terms and conditions
regarding ownership and licenses. However, the subtleties of RMS's
concerns are often misunderstood and incompatible with our tendency to
focus on short term, low friction solutions.

For now, I'll just take a leaf out of 'the Guide', grab my towel and not
panic!

Tim

--
Tim Cross