Re: Please, no GitHub

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Am 13.12.2015 um 07:51 schrieb Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:

> Our investigators reported that there are operations in the site that
> require running nonfree JS code.  I got a list, but don't remember it.

Ah, now I understand why you are so actively discussing this here.
Because that is on your radar screen for much longer time than for
us.

>> They exposed **every single** site functionality through the API
>> (in fact, the Web interface itself uses the API to do its
>> business, so it is safe to say that https://github.com/ is no more
>> than one of the several available front-ends for
>> https://api.github.com/) so https://api.github.com/ is satisfying
>> this criteria.
> 
> The issue we are concerned with is the site _as users normally access it_.
> Non-user interfaces, such as APIs, are a different issue which isn't
> the issue here.

Well, I read this list and write this answer with a non-free mail client.
So I conclude by the same pattern that I should stop reading and
contributing to the list.

> 
>> Their website and API are license-blind.
> 
> It's not clear what that means; my guess is you mean that the site
> permits the files in the repository to carry any sort of license (or
> none).
> 
> However, criterion C5 is about what licenses the site _recommends_,
> not what it _permits_.  It concerns what the site says to users
> about licenses, and what that leads them to do.
> 
> GitHub's recommendations lead people to apply their chosen licenses in
> ways that are legally unclear and unreliable (for instance, not
> stating the license on the source files themselves), and don't mention
> the difference between GPL 3-or-later and GPL 3-only, this leading
> people to choose the latter without realizing they made a choice.
> This fails C5.

Nobody is as experienced as you are in such subtle differences.

99% of the GitHub contributors are developers and programming
specialist. And not legal/license specialists.

Me included.

I wasn't aware of such topics at all until ~2 days ago when
discussion started.

And to be honest, instead of recommending not to use GitHub
at all because of IMHO subtle flaws, FSF should offer something
better. That would better fit my ethical rules.

And if there are not enough contributors to improve Savannah,
FSF should look to make contributions to it more attractive. Or
talk directly to GitHub people.

My 2 cts,
Nikolaus Schaller