19
Who Should Pay For Source Code Availability?
(kristoff.it)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
19 points (91.3% liked)
Opensource
6541 readers
27 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You could do it as submodules, yeah, or using lfs, or also just check in the deps without their corresponding git history.
This does appear to then break the chain of trust for the users of the project, since it then requires downstream to review even more code.
For example, if you're an OSS user of three projects that each depend on library X, you now need to trust three copies of this library and make sure that they're the same as the original.
This seems to be a solution that makes the problem bigger for everyone, not smaller.
I suppose? You’re either reviewing your dependencies or you’re not; I don’t think it matters much whether the unreviewed code comes in via a commit to your git repo or via a package manager. Once you’ve decided to either vendor or fork, that it matches your upstream becomes much less important — what matters is it works for your project. Either approach definitely comes with tradeoffs, that’s for sure; I only fork when I need to float a commit, and I prefer to maintain an artifactory if high availability is required.
I meant the users of your project.
In hindsight, I question the wisdom of my decision to respond to this thread at 2 am my time 😅. Thanks for being nice even though my responses were borderline incoherent.
No worries, it's 3am here right now 😁