[email protected] writes: > Github is "software development as social media". > Thus all you have is backbiting and gossip as 90% of the "development". > Additionally Microsoft encouraged the additions of additional writings > alongside the licenses such as "Codes of Conduct." > > So now you have your licenses (maybe), and then extra writings (CoC)s > that can be incorporated if the thing goes to court.
I think CoC is practically double-edged, if a FOSS wants to be a product-level, there must be some rules for contributors. However, this could be just contribute-guide or something similar. There're some projects requires you sign the CoC first, then you can be invited to fetch the code. Well, I'm not sure, but doesn't it sound like a NDA? I always tell people around me, don't mixup with opensource and free, because proprietary can also give you source code by signing NDA. The opensourced code can be proprietary. But I think the opensource concept is so popular that people can never distince it from free. Not many young people know the history. The NDA pattern has been always existing, open-after-NDA pattern is not a new concept which is SOME of the situations in opensource world. I guess I should write more articles than codes... > Git was supposed to be the opposite of this: decentralized, > uncontrollable. I do think the most successful free software project using Git is Linux kernel, since it consists of so many contributors in a real distributed way. No one even afraid that you can't get Linux kernel code some day just because some servers are down. But nowadays, many people has only one remote copy on GitHub. So if their hardisk is down, and GitHub is down, there's nothing. Of course, this is something to do with good habit, not a problem of GitHub. Best regards. -- GNU Powered it GPL Protected it GOD Blessed it HFG - NalaGinrut Fingerprint F53B 4C56 95B5 E4D5 6093 4324 8469 6772 846A 0058
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
