9:31 a.m.
Since the gitoriousocalypse the de facto centralized source repository
for copyleft-next has been github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next. For
some time the organization github.com/copyleft-next has existed as well
functioning as a mirror of the former repository. I am going to attempt
to treat the latter repository as the authoritative source
repository.
On a related note, I've been experimenting a bit with Docker containers
for certain free software source code hosting systems such as Kallithea,
with some hopeful results.
Richard
11:23 a.m.
New subject: Kallithea for copyleft-next (was: github.com/copyleft-next)
Richard Fontana wrote at 07:31 (PDT) on Wednesday:
Since the gitoriousocalypse the de facto centralized source
repository
for copyleft-next has been [on] github.com .... I am going to attempt
to treat the [github.com/copyleft-next] repository as the
authoritative source repository.
I suppose I was the primary resistance in this project against GitHub,
and I haven't been on top of resisting enough apparently. :)
I wrote on 2015-04-02:
> I'm close to having Kallithea working on copyleft.org, so
I'm willing
> to handle Kallithea for copyleft-next.
I forgot to mention months ago copyleft.org's Kallithea is now, so if
you want a repository on k.copyleft.org for copyleft-next, I can set it
up as the canonical one for copyleft.org. My only concern about that is
that FSF and Conservancy co-sponsor copyleft.org, so we should spend
some effort to make it abundantly clear that copyleft-next isn't
endorsed by the sponsors of the main copyleft.org project.
> The only hard part I've found has been getting data out of
Gitorious.
> If you don't mind losing it all, it's probably easy to switch to
> Kallithea.
I installed git-hub ( https://packages.debian.org/stretch/git-hub )
today and it seems to have features to access most of GitHub features
using Free Software, so it may be true that the full workflow can be
done without using the proprietary Javascript on their site, but....
I suppose I will spare the speech about repeating the past. Don't you
want a service you can control?
On a related note, I've been experimenting a bit with Docker
containers for certain free software source code hosting systems such
as Kallithea, with some hopeful results.
That solution would work too, no?
--
-- bkuhn
========================================================================
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter
1:33 p.m.
New subject: Kallithea for copyleft-next (was: github.com/copyleft-next)
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 09:23:14AM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
I forgot to mention months ago copyleft.org's Kallithea is now,
so if
you want a repository on k.copyleft.org for copyleft-next, I can set it
up as the canonical one for copyleft.org. My only concern about that is
that FSF and Conservancy co-sponsor copyleft.org, so we should spend
some effort to make it abundantly clear that copyleft-next isn't
endorsed by the sponsors of the main copyleft.org project.
That seems like a good path forward.
I installed git-hub ( https://packages.debian.org/stretch/git-hub )
today and it seems to have features to access most of GitHub features
using Free Software, so it may be true that the full workflow can be
done without using the proprietary Javascript on their site, but....
I suppose I will spare the speech about repeating the past. Don't you
want a service you can control?
Of course. Though I don't think I would be in full control of a
repository on k.copyleft.org.
I would say, with the passage of time, the notion that GitHub-centric
hosting would result in a significantly larger community of
contributors seems questionable (though I am sure some of the issues
and comments made through GitHub on copyleft-next would not have
existed had GitHub not been used).
On the other hand, I must admit that my personal views towards GitHub
have become if anything more positive over the years. In particular I've
seen GitHub the company take some reasonable steps to combat certain
forms of abusive conduct and I have found the negative reaction to
such efforts quite disturbing. Some of that reaction has appropriated
the rhetoric of proponents of free network services.
> On a related note, I've been experimenting a bit with
Docker
> containers for certain free software source code hosting systems such
> as Kallithea, with some hopeful results.
That solution would work too, no?
Yes, at least in theory.
Richard
3:06 p.m.
New subject: [META] Kallithea vs. GitHub for copyleft-next (was Re: Kallithea for copyleft-next (was: github.com/copyleft-next)
Richard Fontana wrote today:
Of course. Though I don't think I would be in full control of a
repository
on k.copyleft.org.
Honestly, I could really use someone to volunteer to be a "backup root" on
k.copyleft.org, so if you'd exchange with me a promise you can be the backup
root (e.g., for when I'm on planes without network access, etc. and something
goes down), then I'd be glad to give you root privs on k.copyleft.org. This
does not magically make Kallithea Franklin-Street-Statement-compliant, but
this particular instance might be for this particular project. ;)
I would say, with the passage of time, the notion that
GitHub-centric
hosting would result in a significantly larger community of contributors
seems questionable
I'd go so far as to say that the anecdotal evidence on that is
incontrovertible on that point, since copyleft-next has been least active
during the post-Gitoriopocalypse era.
(though I am sure some of the issues and comments made through GitHub
on
copyleft-next would not have existed had GitHub not been used).
Well, there is still no Free Software issue tracker that is equivalent to
GitHub's in terms of pull-request integration (Kallithea doesn't have one,
and in fact the Kallithea project itself is still using Bitbucket for that,
which is just as bad as GitHub.
I mean, I guess we could all go down the Phabricator rathole and see if its
issue tracker is "good enough".....
On the other hand, I must admit that my personal views towards GitHub
have
become if anything more positive over the years. Some of [the negative]
reaction [to GitHub's good policies] has appropriated the rhetoric of
proponents of free network services.
This specific argument seems flawed. IIUC, you're arguing that you're more
postive toward GitHub: GitHub tried to do something good on an issue
unrelated to net-service freedom, and that you became more tolerant of
GitHub's net-service freedom compromises because their enemies on the
unrelated issue coopted network service freedom rhetoric.
I should probably blog the rest of this email rather than merely post it
here, but I started writing it here, and, well, it is relevant (albeit as a
META issue) to this project, so here goes:
IMO, the remaining central problem with GitHub is two-fold:
0. many of the features require local installation of proprietary software,
in the form of JavaScript.
1. Failure to comply with other principles in the Franklin Street Statement.
I'm trying to decide if these remaining problems morally demand me to limit
*my* use of GitHub. Notably, I suspect that (0) can be resolved with the
Free Software github CLI tool I mentioned earlier in this thread. If so, the
only moral argument under (0) is that focusing development of a project at
GitHub likely encourages others to use proprietary software (because they
will likely use the web interface, not the CLI tool).
With (1), the Gitoriopocalypse taught me that overzealous attention to
liberation of the entire server-side software in a SaaSS [0] situation might
cause users to miss more important netservice freedom issues. I do think
GitHub is SaaSS, but does the existence of
https://github.com/joeyh/github-backup mitigate that issue enough that enough
that a full-on boycott is overkill? As it turned out, I had to *hand paste*
pending merge requests from Gitorious over to Kallithea because there was no
export tool!
I'm pondering with these questions personally as well -- I'm currently using
github as "Git repository backup" for most of my projects, since I don't
have
"backup" for the Kallithea instances I'm personally in charge of.
I've not received a pull request on any of those projects on GitHub, but if I
did, would I close it with a message saying why to boycott it? Would I
accept the pull request, use github for that one workflow, and encourage the
contributor to use the Kallithea instance in future? I honestly don't know.
Again, these are meta-issues that I'm pondering, and I wonder if
copyleft-next would like to ponder them as well, and perhaps, given Fontana's
apparent increased liking of GitHub, pick a more "meet them in the middle"
tact about GitHub. I have to admit I'd be curious to see that, since roughly
*no one* on GitHub ever raises the issues of concern, maybe the best tact is
to "collaborate on GitHub, but find a way to remind users about the
compromises they're making".
Do you have any thoughts on this, Fontana?
[0] SaaSS is a very useful term coined by Richard M. Stallman, in case anyone
on this list hasn't previously encountered it:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html
--
-- bkuhn
========================================================================
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter
3:34 p.m.
New subject: [META] Kallithea vs. GitHub for copyleft-next (was Re: Kallithea for copyleft-next
On 04/30/2016 04:06 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Richard Fontana wrote today:
[...]
> On the other hand, I must admit that my personal views towards
GitHub have
> become if anything more positive over the years. Some of [the negative]
> reaction [to GitHub's good policies] has appropriated the rhetoric of
> proponents of free network services.
This specific argument seems flawed. IIUC, you're arguing that you're more
postive toward GitHub: GitHub tried to do something good on an issue
unrelated to net-service freedom, and that you became more tolerant of
GitHub's net-service freedom compromises because their enemies on the
unrelated issue coopted network service freedom rhetoric.
It was a quick essentially emotional assertion, I admit.
I should probably blog the rest of this email rather than merely post
it
here, but I started writing it here, and, well, it is relevant (albeit as a
META issue) to this project, so here goes:
IMO, the remaining central problem with GitHub is two-fold:
0. many of the features require local installation of proprietary software,
in the form of JavaScript.
1. Failure to comply with other principles in the Franklin Street Statement.
I'm trying to decide if these remaining problems morally demand me to limit
*my* use of GitHub. Notably, I suspect that (0) can be resolved with the
Free Software github CLI tool I mentioned earlier in this thread. If so, the
only moral argument under (0) is that focusing development of a project at
GitHub likely encourages others to use proprietary software (because they
will likely use the web interface, not the CLI tool).
With (1), the Gitoriopocalypse taught me that overzealous attention to
liberation of the entire server-side software in a SaaSS [0] situation might
cause users to miss more important netservice freedom issues. I do think
GitHub is SaaSS, but does the existence of
https://github.com/joeyh/github-backup mitigate that issue enough that enough
that a full-on boycott is overkill? As it turned out, I had to *hand paste*
pending merge requests from Gitorious over to Kallithea because there was no
export tool!
I'm pondering with these questions personally as well -- I'm currently using
github as "Git repository backup" for most of my projects, since I don't
have
"backup" for the Kallithea instances I'm personally in charge of.
I've not received a pull request on any of those projects on GitHub, but if I
did, would I close it with a message saying why to boycott it? Would I
accept the pull request, use github for that one workflow, and encourage the
contributor to use the Kallithea instance in future? I honestly don't know.
Again, these are meta-issues that I'm pondering, and I wonder if
copyleft-next would like to ponder them as well, and perhaps, given Fontana's
apparent increased liking of GitHub, pick a more "meet them in the middle"
tact about GitHub.
I wouldn't make too much of my essentially emotional comment. With
respect to copyleft-next and GitHub, here are the issues today:
1. I myself use GitHub and am sure I will continue to make some use of
GitHub even if copyleft-next ceases all official use of GitHub. So
there's an issue of possible personal hypocrisy or failure to
consistently apply principle.
2. I continue to think the strongest argument against use of GitHub for
copyleft-next is the one you originally made long ago:
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/6#issue-5447013
It is more acute today because I now believe that copyleft-next should
address the issue of network services freedom (which I did not believe
when I started the project).
3. Until recently I have had practical difficulties in setting up
self-hosted git-based web service things I've investigated (Kallithea,
Gitlab, Pagure, Gogs ...).
Richard
4:13 p.m.
New subject: [META] Kallithea vs. GitHub for copyleft-next (was Re: Kallithea for copyleft-next
Richard Fontana wrote:
2. I continue to think the strongest argument against use of GitHub
for
copyleft-next is the one you originally made long ago:
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/6#issue-5447013
Two things have changed for me since I wrote the text in that link above.
First, the Gitoriocalypse. Gitorious was AGPLv3'd, but it *clearly did not
respect net services freedom* because there was no way to export and move to
your own instance of the same software. In other words, having the SaaSS
available under Affero GPL is a *necessary* but clearly and undeniably not a
*sufficient* condition for net.services freedom. There was a day last year
when I was ironically wishing my Gitorious projects had been on GitHub
because at least I'd have an API to extract my data!
Second, failure by Free Software zealots to convince any but a very few
number of developers to realize the dangerous situation with GitHub.
I'm starting to wonder if a project using GitHub with a culture of regularly
discussing *why* GitHub is a horrible compromise and why it is a problem
might be more optimal strategy. (I'm thinking something akin to "using Unix
machines to write GNU" sort of mentality.)
Specifically, GitHub is so popular now that virtually any project refusing to
use it will fail to make a dent in GitHub's popularity, but will take a huge
hit in their own. (i.e., the Linux and Git projects themselves refuse to use
GitHub, but I bet if we polled GitHub users, 99% of them wouldn't even know
that, and even Linux and Git maintain read-only mirrors on GitHub). I'm thus
convinced, at a minimum, that it's an absolute necessity to interact GitHub
(in a Free Software only way, which a 'git push' certainly allows) to publish
read-only copies of projects. It's an important way to reach the GitHub
community to let them know your project exists, *and* likely the very best
way to get the message out that "not everyone uses GitHub, and there are good
reasons not to!". And, to bring this back to our situation at hand:
copyleft-next is always going to at least have a read-only mirror of its Git
repository on Github.
Meanwhile, if it's true that GitHub's issue tracker and pull requests can be
interacted with fully through a Free Software command line program (which is
a huge change since my original comments about coyleft-next being on GitHub),
it might be possible to separate out the question of proprietary clients.
Thus, there are three distinct (but interrelated) issues with GitHub:
A. The SaaSS truly server-side code, that will probably never be released.
B. The mixed SaaSS+proprietary Javascript web interface.
C. Other Franklin-Street-Statement-related issues, such as data
portability, federation, etc.
GitHub is abysmal on A, problematic-but-regularly-getting-better on C. And,
B can almost be ignored entirely because their improvements on C allows for
Free Software replacements for B. (And, under the "don't contribute to a
proprietary program's popularity" rule, we're now in the "GNU binaries
for
Microsoft Windows" territory: it's not like providing them caused someone to
use Microsoft Windows who wasn't going to do so anyway, and the same is true
with virtually any but the biggest projects in the world for GitHub.
copyleft-next's use of GitHub will presumably not cause anyone to sign up for
a GitHub account [0].)
Now, mix in the fact that GitHub has culturally succeed at using "Open
Source" messaging to gather (in its social networking aspects) just about
everyone who might even tangentially contribute to Open Source and Free
Software into a user base. (Even I have an active GitHub account, and I'm
actively boycotting Twitter, Linked-In, and Facebook.)
I think we never faced a situation quite like this one in the history of
software-development-infrastructure SaaSS. I used to think it's "SourceForge
all over again", but it's more complicated than that now. Boycotting
SourceForge made obvious sense and it clearly succeeded as a strategy, but it
was really stalemate, because our defeat of SourceForge only left open the
possibility for a GitHub to exist. I'm dubious that a boycott of GitHub will
yield the outcome of defeating GitHub and/or reforming its
anti-software-freedom and anti-net-services freedom policies.
It is more acute today because I now believe that copyleft-next
should
address the issue of network services freedom (which I did not believe
when I started the project).
I almost did a little dance here in my apartment at reading that. :) I'll
get you some old patches back RSN. :)
But, as I said above, I think an Affero-like clause is definitely a necessary
condition for future net-services freedom, but it's not sufficient. I doubt
we could construct something we'd consider an Open Source and Free Software
license that could handle the other Franklin Street Statement issues (but it
is possible I'm just not thinking creatively enough).
3. Until recently I have had practical difficulties in setting up
self-hosted git-based web service things I've investigated (Kallithea,
Gitlab, Pagure, Gogs ...).
This is a relevant problem for sure. The Kallithea instances I'm in charge
of, which are only a few, require substantial attention from me to keep
running.
[0] I almost reworked my entire argument, though, when I considered that
lawyers who don't like Git might actually contribute to copyleft-next if
it eventually becomes anything more than a toy project, in which case it
*would* draw new users to GitHub. That's something to think hard about.
--
-- bkuhn
========================================================================
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter
9:05 a.m.
New subject: [META] Kallithea vs. GitHub for copyleft-next (was Re: Kallithea for copyleft-next
On 30/04/16 22:13, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
But, as I said above, I think an Affero-like clause is definitely a
necessary
condition for future net-services freedom, but it's not sufficient. I doubt
we could construct something we'd consider an Open Source and Free Software
license that could handle the other Franklin Street Statement issues (but it
is possible I'm just not thinking creatively enough).
I agree with you that it would be very difficult, because it seems like
it would effectively require the developer to implement certain features
(like data export or an API), and I'm fairly sure that would run into
freeness problems.
Even the AGPL requires developers to implement and maintain a certain
feature; however, it describes that feature in very general terms and it
can be as simple as a clickable link, and so it doesn't seem like a
great infringement on one's freedom to modify or change. But making an
API to your program's data is a totally different deal.
Gerv
5:41 p.m.
New subject: [META] Kallithea vs. GitHub for copyleft-next (was Re: Kallithea for copyleft-next (was: github.com/copyleft-next)
On Apr 30, 2016 16:07, "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn(a)ebb.org> wrote:
Honestly, I could really use someone to volunteer to be a "backup root" on
k.copyleft.org, so if you'd exchange with me a promise you can be the
backup
root (e.g., for when I'm on planes without network access, etc.
and
something
goes down), then I'd be glad to give you root privs on
k.copyleft.org.
This
does not magically make Kallithea
Franklin-Street-Statement-compliant, but
this particular instance might be for this particular project. ;)
Though this request seemed addressed to Fontana specifically, I'd gladly
volunteer for such duty.
2922
days inactive
2927
days old
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Ben Cotton -
Bradley M. Kuhn -
Gervase Markham -
Richard Fontana