> 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.
He's already said that GitHub isn't appropriate for free software -
sensu Stallman.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2015-12/msg00168.html
> 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.
Of course it would be against his principles - it's just another
closed-source software company.
Why people are complaining and threatening to jump ship just because
it was bought by another entity whose only concern and priority (by
**law**) is the bottom line, is completely beyond me!
GitLab are also commercial, but I believe that they have the right
blend of commercial and Open Source - you can't expect a company to
host millions of projects on nothing but fresh air!
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab
> In June 2018, the acquisition of competitor GitHub by Microsoft[24][25] caused a migration of over 250,000 projects
toGitLab[26].
I just don't understand why people think Microsoft was any different
from GitHub before the acquisition?
Pól...
> Tim
