nixers
Mass open-sourcing? - Printable Version
+- nixers (https://nixers.net)
+-- Forum: General (https://nixers.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Psychology, Philosophy, and Licenses (https://nixers.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=28)
+--- Thread: Mass open-sourcing? (/showthread.php?tid=1933)
Pages: 1 2 3


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - xero - 18-07-2016

i personally like github. and nothing is stopping you from having a mirror.

github as a "social network for programmers" is a cool idea in my opinion. having your public commits be published can give your small project a higher visibility. like, just searching new commits for a given language will show you all kinds of projects you may or may not have an interest in that you might have never seen. github has a team of people who keep the server running (they have a pretty decent uptime) and a whole team of security people working to try and keep your stuff secure, which you'd have to do on your own with self hosting.

i completely agree about have your code hosted by a company, but i dont see sites like savannah.gnu.org and repo.or.cz being much better. and github has a much better reputation for quality than sourceforge or bitbucket. gitlab being an open-source project that is self hosted, is the one i think might be the best alternative, but guess what? it's also run by a company gitlab LLC.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - z3bra - 19-07-2016

I must admit that the ability to "browse" random project is pretty good.

I'm not against using these platforms (github, gitlab, sourceforge, ...) to share your projects. They do help promoting. One just has to make sure they don't lose control over their project.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - pranomostro - 22-07-2016

(18-07-2016, 03:46 AM)z3bra Wrote: Third, their "fork" policy. They make it so easy to steal code from other people that it bother me. The idea behind forking is to make it easier for people to contribute. In the end, it makes it easier for people to get credit for someone else's work.

I have thought about the question if there was a cryptographic method
of proving that some information was created by a person and only that person.
The only method I could think of is blockchain, which is quite complicated and
requires some motivation to verify the chain (some sort of money). This is too
hard.

(18-07-2016, 03:46 AM)z3bra Wrote: I much prefer the "old-school" way to share code, using git-daemon and a website, on a custom server. This way, you're responsible for your code, and people refer to YOUR website to access/modify/fix the code. And when they send patches, they do so to get something fixed rather than having their name mentionned.

I am also quite convinced that the old way with patches over e-mail or mailing lists for big projects.
But I think it is a problem to assume every programmer or open-source enthusiast is willing to set
up a git/web server. It is simply not convenient, and it's not easy.

I would like to see a decentralized way, such as with ipfs, simply cloning from ipfs with git,
writing your patches and sending them per email.

But centralization is of course always bad. Github is not beneficial, it's a company,
and I have a deep natural distrust for companies.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - z3bra - 22-07-2016

(22-07-2016, 07:03 AM)pranomostro Wrote: I would like to see a decentralized way, such as with ipfs, simply cloning from ipfs with git,
writing your patches and sending them per email.

Git itself is decentralized! You can easily setup a local 'git-daemon' server that people can use to clone/pull from your own code.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - pranomostro - 23-07-2016

But I still need a domain name if I want other people to be able to clone, don't I?

And I perceive the action of 'getting a domain name' as difficult. Maybe that's because
I have to pay money (if I understand the system correctly) and interact with other
people.

Maybe I'm just lazy, but this is way harder than using github.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - 075 - 23-07-2016

You don't have to interact with other people, and the money you have to spend isn't really a lot. But I agree, github is way easier.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - z3bra - 24-07-2016

An URL is nothing but a simpler way to remember an IP address. You can easily NAT git-daemon port on your home router, and get people to fetch your changes using the public IP give by your ISP


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - jkl - 25-07-2016

I disagree with Github's new management's "ethical reasoning" (all that feminism and social justice humbug), I publish all of my new stuff on Bitbucket, licensed under the WTFPL. Which leads me right to OP's question: No, I don't think "the mass" has any advantage of being able to read their kernel sources, because, seriously, who cares? The only reason I put my stuff into WTFPL licensing is that I really don't care what is done with it. I develop software, people may or may not like and/or use it. That's all that matters. I don't care if anyone takes it and adds his name. I don't lose profit anyway.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - z3bra - 25-07-2016

(25-07-2016, 03:46 PM)jkl Wrote: I don't care if anyone takes it and adds his name. I don't lose profit anyway.

I used to think the same. But it now bother me when people use my work to entertain their ego. You have all my respect though. I wish I could detach myself from the code.


RE: Mass open-sourcing? - jkl - 25-07-2016

My code does not disappear when people take and modify it, is's still mine, published in my repositories and saved somewhere in my backups. It's an honor when people fork and modify it. One of my old projects on GitHub has new forks every now and then. I randomly look into them and cherry-pick their changes if I feel like it. ;-) Of course, as my repository is the official one, the chance to drive away traffic from me is rather small.