The impending sale of GitHub to Microsoft is another example of what happens when we fixate on #opensource IP but not equitable corporate ownership models. How *should* the repository of most free, open software projects be owned?
@ntnsndr Yes. It's a problem about focussing on #opensource IP, but it's also a problem of (at least parts of) the #opensource community generally focussing on writing code and missing other aspects such as planning and operating infrastructure required for writing #opensource code. Same directly goes for loads of #opensource projects using #Slack, in example. All these tools seem widely adopted because they're "easy to use". We need to fix this.
@ntnsndr It should be distributed and federated, on a model not disimilar to ActivityPub.
What Github (and Freshmeat and Sourceforge before it) give us is convenient discovery. We need a distributed mechanism for convenient discovery.
@ntnsndr Free Software has had GNU Savannah for a long time. The only difference being that it lacked the capital to keep up in the feature race. If we keep looking at number one in anything we will always be disappointed in anything else. But there is no reason to.
@ntnsndr yeah, definitely don't think it should be "owned". Would be really cool to see federated github hosting... like, git is decentralized. If there was a really nifty tool for like mass p2p hosting with strict checksums and repos you fork or clone (or decide to) can be relayed to folks on the network (that way everyone is contributing resources to hosting)
I like the idea of being able to host your own or pay someone to (but without giving so much power to a corporation or single entity)