358
Why are so many Linux projects on Microsoft GitHub? Shouldn't they all move to Codeberg? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
126 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sure, I know a lot of projects have been on GH since before MS bought it, but they've owned it for quite a while now, so we really should be seeing better migration out by now, no?

Codeberg is nonprofit which seems more in the spirit of the Linux ecosystem overall. GH is for-profit...

EDIT: All right, all right, I've gotten schooled. Thank you, O wise ones; I didn't realize how much Microsoft literally depends on Linux, among other things. I will proceed to shut up.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 3 months ago (8 children)

For instance, the MIT license being popular is pretty hard evidence that FOSS doesn’t necessarily mean anti-corporate, and for many users GitHub still more or less does what it says on the tin.

I'm pretty sure that MIT license is that popular out of ignorance, instead of an informed decision to allow corporate to steal and make money out of their code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I'd like to think that is so but some here will argue non-copyleft licenses are "more free". Ime they don't reply after I point out that's the freedom to deny others freedom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    It's freedom nonetheless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Widen the scope to consider downsteam users (the dev's user's users and beyond) and now the potential lack of any software freedom makes it freedom muchtheless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I've known people IRL who talk about the GPL like it's a virus infecting your code

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    I remember this confusion a LOT back when main-branch Blender had its own game engine built in.

    Forums were full of people saying crap like :

    "Don't use that, because since you used Blender which is GPL it means you have to provide the source code to your incredible GOTY contender and then everybody will beat you at life!!!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Respectfully disagree. I can only speculate why other developers choose MIT. But for small and medium-sized projects, a more restrictive license is unlikely to protect them from this scenario anyway. And if that's true, one could argue it's better to go down a road where corporate sponsorships are potentially more likely.

    Personally, I often choose MIT because I don't care who uses my code and for what, and I'd prefer that it be easy to borrow from. I used to be concerned about how my code was used, but over the years I've developed a strong dislike for copyright as a concept in general so I fight it how I can. Some of my projects are so simple that even MIT seems like overkill. In those cases I use the Unlicense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent