Why would Gnu and Linux have anything to do with microsoft acquiring github? The reasons for the involvement in open source are vastly different.
That’s the problem with Reddit. You can create your own private echochamber of misguided people. It doesn’t really promote open communication or growth (personal or community).
Hivemind can happen anywhere, and is actually less likely on a large community site like Reddit where you have millions of users with various viewpoints already registered than an insular small forum like this one.
Meh if microsoft wants to fund free software then cool.
Now the rules roll out 
well drama.
So we need a backup so Microsoft the cuddle toy it is not is not in charge of open source.
See:
Also we don’t need a backup. They way git functions is enough. Dev’s just have to do this to switch it to somewhere else from their local machine git set remote origin https://thing.
6 Likes
I was being a little facetious.
If MS is just giving back to opensource funding a repository. Fine. But 7.5 BILLION means there is a reason ? Doesn’t it.
Yes. We talked about that reason extensively. I suggest you read the earlier comments.
4 Likes
GitHub bought by Microsoft…
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-to-buy-github-for-75-billion-in-stock-2018-06-04
I wouldn’t trust GitHub anymore… Not sure about everyone else here.
Already been some discussion on this topic.
Merged topic ^
After the sale? Or right now? In general, shall not be spoken about, ever? Or just with your repos?
From what I gather in this thread, most are in the wait and see mode. Some are absolutely outraged, cause remember in 1997 when Microsoft did that thing? Linux Farms remembers…
The Linux Foundation has shown support, as has RMS I believe. Linus said “I won”, or something like that, so I’m sure he walks around with a stiffy at all times.
Future GitHub CEO has said everything is going to remain the same.
1 Like
RMS is supporting Microsoft buying GitHub?
Pretty sure that was the context, but I believe the overall sentiment was he’s very happy Microsoft is utilizing and contributing to Free Software and Open Source.
@Eden can probably dig up the video faster than I can.
“…being bought by Microsoft isn’t a bad thing…”
“…Microsoft isn’t evil…”
Butchering those quotes, but that’s essentially it.
Starts about 38:40
Dude then goes on to blabber on about “malware” in Windows components. He also says he’s never heard of StackOverflow? Lol. Must suck running a laptop that has 644Mb of RAM.
Anyway, he’s indifferent, AKA in the wait and see branch.
Would his opinion have any influence on yours?
1 Like
Considering he downloads his websites to browse them (assuming he still does) its quite possible he hasn’t, or maybe he meant that hes never seen it or used it. I don’t think he regularly codes anymore, and probably doesn’t use that stuff if he does. (just a possible explanation).
Topic is here if you want to discuss RMS further @staykoff just so we dont get to off topic. Interview with Dr. Richard M. Stallman, Software Freedom Activist
There is also another interview where he talks about Microsoft contributing to free software as not being a bad thing. His views are pretty solid in that regard, hes less extreme than the Linux fanboys you see who scream at anything like this. If you contribute to open code, that is ultimately good, as the code is open regardless of who contributes.
1 Like
That is absolutely fascinating. Did not know that.
1 Like
https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
I’ll stop my derailment there. I wonder if you’ll make a thread just to say… “he really does this?”
Stallman says he doesn’t code anymore, which is a shame. He could contribute so much IMHO. He also only uses cash to buy stuff.
I understand why he doesn’t freak out with MS buying github. 10 years before Linus what’s his name even thought of Linux MS had the most popular Unix, Xenix, which later became Sco xenix or just Sco. The other 2 ports at that time were BSD and the original from AT+T, which was busted up in 82. MS took some stuff from Xenix to make dos better since with the AT+T breakup IBM didn’t want anything to do with anything Unix.
I think the interviewer was hoping to have Stallman go ballistic with that question, not an unreasonable hope given Stallmans’ reputation.
Maybe he figures if MS wanted to take over all things Unix they could have done so. That’s pure conjecture on my part.
He also has advice on maintaining marital bliss…
https://stallman.org/articles/children.html
Hmm, something I’ve never considered… What happens if an open source project changes its license and becomes proprietary? I imagine all forks would need to purge the adopted code.
No, not at all. Once you release software under an open-source license like the GPL that is irrevocable. That specific released version will always be available under the GPL. Forks can continue.
Now you own all the code you produce, so you can release it under the GPL, or commercial license, or whatever you want. You can change code previously under GPL to proprietary for new releases too, and stop distributing the old GPL code, although you can’t stop someone else from distributing that GPL code. Or you can release code under the GPL and also license it commercially under a less restrictive terms, so a company can integrate the software into their commercial product for example.
But if you accept code from third-parties, you would need to get their permission to license their code commercially, which would be very difficult to do. Or otherwise, remove all code from contributors.
Many OSS projects have contributor license agreements, and you need to carefully read them before deciding to contribute, as many of them flat-out sign over your rights.
3 Likes