Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:49:42AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > What's wrong with GitHub, anyway?
>> 
>> It requires separate accounts and credentials (much more likely to be a
>> target for attacks), has its own "terms of service", may choose to
>> discontinue projects based on commercial criteria, can cause tool
>> lock-in and so on, relies on its own proprietary software.
>
> All the above is true, but github also provides a nicer way for
> developers to interact with git, by at least one order of
> magnitude.

So the question is what we should be telling the Savannah operators to
make working on GNU projects using Git more feasible.

> I'd actually give github one order of magnitude for their overall
> website, plus an additional order of magnitude for their "git help"
> doc pages, which are absolutely fantastic.

Under which license?  All I read on the web page regarding the docs is
"© 2013 GitHub Inc. All rights reserved.".  Again, that means that it
can go away at any point of time, there is no community centered around
it, and quoting their pages anywhere might get you into trouble.

The terms of service are such that they can change them anytime, just
put up some notice on their website wherever they want, and any
continued use of their service indicates your agreement with it:

    If GitHub makes material changes to these Terms, we will notify you
    by email or by posting a notice on our site before the changes are
    effective. Any new features that augment or enhance the current
    Service, including the release of new tools and resources, shall be
    subject to the Terms of Service. Continued use of the Service after
    any such changes shall constitute your consent to such changes. You
    can review the most current version of the Terms of Service at any
    time at: http://github.com/site/terms

This kind of "we can change the terms of service at any point of time
without you having a reasonable chance of noticing, and you'll be bound
to the changed terms automagically" shenanigan is the kind of stuff
giving Facebook a bad rap.  Notice that they reserve the right to make
"non-material" changes to their usage terms without even putting up a
notice, and if you continue using the service, you agree to be bound to
the changed terms.

> The concern about terms of service and discontinuing services are
> valid ones, however unlike google, github is *all* about the
> developers.  I can't see them closing down their free open-source
> stuff, given how much bad will that would generate.

The only relevant question for their business is how much bad will it
would generate with _paying_ customers.

The whole genesis of Git itself is a story about how "free" proprietary
services can come to bite you in your behind at the least convenient
moment: Linux was developed using BitKeeper, and BitKeeper's owner
decided to lock Linux out when someone developed a free client for
accessing the repository that he did not like.

So Torvalds had to write his own version control system in a hurry, and
not everybody has a Torvalds at his disposal.

-- 
David Kastrup