From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-scm.com Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:11:02 -0700 Message-ID: <7vbq0kckc9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <6b6419750807251838h12ea4f19gdff107694e3797c4@mail.gmail.com> <20080726023707.GX32184@machine.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Scott Chacon" , david@lang.hm, "Petr Baudis" , "Patrick Aljord" , "git list" To: Wincent Colaiuta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 27 01:12:23 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KMsw1-0006iq-3y for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:12:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752679AbYGZXLO (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752582AbYGZXLO (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:14 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:34700 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752182AbYGZXLN (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E34C3D840; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C35DE3D83F; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:04 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2373757E-5B68-11DD-BDB1-3113EBD4C077-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Wincent Colaiuta writes: > I'd like to see the "official" Git homepage as distanced as possible > from GitHub. They've taken Git (free as in speech, free as in beer) > and built a closed-source commercial product on top of it -- curiously > for something which you can do for free yourself anyway ... I do not share that sentiment. It is perfectly fine for somebody to offer managed git repositories as a commercial _service_ to people who want to just _use_ git. It is what they could do themselves, but from the end user's point of view, it's just "outsourcing" and is nothing unusual. If GitHub folks improved the core part of the system while building their service, we would want to get the changes back, and we will, _if_ they distribute their software (i.e. they are not allowed to just distribute binaries, if it links with git). At the emotional level, if some people make the world a better place by building new software around what I wrote, I would like to have the same kind of access to its source as I gave them access to my sources, whether they distribute the end product as packaged software or they offer it as a service to be used by others without ever distributing anything. But that is merely my _wish_; it is different from the terms git is distributed under. I think you are going a bit too far to hate them for not opening up their sources they use to implement "managed git repositories service", which is a _user_ of the core git, but most likely is not a derivative of git itself. IOW, it's not your code.