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.

  • KssioAug@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    223·
    27 days ago

    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.

    • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
      172·
      27 days ago

      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.

        • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          26 days ago

          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.

            • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              26 days ago

              I prevent others from relicensing my works under less-free licenses or making them non-free by using Copyleft/share-a-like licenses.