From hf at pixelplanet.fun Sun Oct 20 15:22:49 2024 From: hf at pixelplanet.fun (hf) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:22:49 +0200 Subject: Remove Sourcehut from recommendations Message-ID: <3613513.dWV9SEqChM@fedora.gatas> Hello, in your recommendations on GiveUpGitHub you list sourcehut as alternative: https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ Sourcehut claims to be FOSS, but it factually isn't, since there is no way to even build it yourself. There is documentation on how to install it - as binaries - on Alpine Linux only - by installing their own binary repostory - a repository that wants to have the highest priority in the system and modifies other packages for unknown reasons with undocumented patches: https://man.sr.ht/packages.md It even tells you openly not do build and package it yourself. There is also the problem of the only maintainer being a problematic person who demanded to forcefully inject IUDs in the wombs of 14 year old girls and who moderates multiple lolicon communities. https://files.catbox.moe/3w4jyv.png Please consider if it is worth supporting this. Especially when we have actually free software like gitea and gitlab doing a better job and actually encouraging to self-host. I heard the SFC is funding them as well and that people within the SFC like Jason Self are supportive of Drew and his statements. This is highly questionable. -- Greetings From yctct at yctct.com Sun Oct 20 16:13:22 2024 From: yctct at yctct.com (yctct at yctct.com) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:13:22 +0200 Subject: Add Forgejo, Disroot instance Re: Remove Sourcehut from recommendations In-Reply-To: <3613513.dWV9SEqChM@fedora.gatas> References: <3613513.dWV9SEqChM@fedora.gatas> Message-ID: Hello list, > https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ > Especially when we have actually free software like gitea and gitlab doing a better job > and actually encouraging to self-host. I would also like to suggest adding Forgejo[1] to the list "Self-Host (or join a group that self-hosts). A few options:" And I would like to suggest adding the instance of Forgejo[2] ran by Disroot, a non-profit[3], to the list "Alternative Hosting Services:". yctct [1] https://codeberg.org/forgejo or https://forgejo.org/ [2] https://git.disroot.org/ [3] p.16 https://disroot.org/annual_reports/AnnualReport2023.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bkuhn at sfconservancy.org Sun Oct 20 23:22:50 2024 From: bkuhn at sfconservancy.org (Bradley M. Kuhn) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 16:22:50 -0700 Subject: Accusations of AGPL violations by Sourcehut belong elsewhere (was Re: Remove Sourcehut from recommendations) In-Reply-To: <3613513.dWV9SEqChM@fedora.gatas> References: <3613513.dWV9SEqChM@fedora.gatas> Message-ID: hf, I'm replying here to close out this thread, but this list isn't the right place to make allegations of AGPLv3 violations (even if they were substantiated, which yours aren't). SFC has a contact address for that at . Please do review the The Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html These Principles, which were also endorsed by the FSF, do encourage avoiding going public with accusations of violations *at least* until they are confirmed with a Complete, Corresponding Source (CCS) check. hf wrote: > Sourcehut claims to be FOSS, but it factually isn't, since there is no way > to even build it yourself. Recommendations that it is easier to use prebuilt binaries than to attempt to bootstrap is not, nor has it ever been, a violation of copyleft licenses. If that were a violation of copyleft in itself, then the entirety of Debian would be in constant violation of copyleft, since the Debian project pushes users to use the prebuilt binaries rather than bootstrap. If your allegation is true that it is impossible to build those packages from sources and then reinstall the freshly built packages, that would indeed be an AGPLv3 violation. However, your email does not include results of a CCS check. Once you've attempted to build and install and been unable to do so, definitely raise the issue directly with the project maintainers, and if they seem unwilling to address the issues, please report it as an AGPL violation via the usual ways (which are not this list). > Especially when we have actually free software like gitea and gitlab doing > a better job and actually encouraging to self-host. These are both already listed on https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ > I heard the SFC is funding them as well It's very difficult to take your email seriously when you include false accusations based on unsubstantiated rumors. I hadn't heard this rumor before, but I can dispel it: writing as the Treasurer of SFC, I can confirm that SFC is not, to my knowledge, funding SourceHut. You can also fact-check SFC's grant-making by reviewing our Form 990s at https://sfconservancy.org/about/transparency/. > and that people within the SFC like Jason Self Jason Self is a colleague of ours, and he does donate to SFC each year, but he has not, and has never been, "within the SFC". I also have no knowledge what Jason's opinions are about Sourcehut and/or statements by its maintainers. > This is highly questionable. … not as questionable as your email itself is. Your email seems to be a politically motivated email — more focused on your personal opinions about SourceHut's maintainers and mostly unrelated to the software itself. Whether or not SourceHut is a viable FOSS alternative to GitHub is the issue that we're concerned about here on this list. Please take your complaints about unrelated individuals elsewhere, and please take AGPL violation complaints to the appropriate fora, but only *after* doing extensive CCS checking (as SFC and FSF do). -- Bradley M. Kuhn - he/them Treasuer at Software Freedom Conservancy ======================================================================== Become a Conservancy Sustainer today: https://sfconservancy.org/sustainer From j at jxself.org Sun Oct 20 23:36:18 2024 From: j at jxself.org (Jason Self) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 16:36:18 -0700 Subject: Remove Sourcehut from recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <3613513.dWV9SEqChM@fedora.gatas> Message-ID: <20241020163618.789e0350@valencia> hr wrote: > I heard the SFC is funding them as well and that people within the > SFC like Jason Self are supportive of Drew and his statements. I'm unclear why I'm mentioned in this context, especially incorrectly on both counts. I am not currently, nor have I ever been, "part" of Software Freedom Conservancy or involved in supporting Drew or his statements. Any claim to the contrary is mistaken. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From j at jxself.org Mon Oct 21 02:11:37 2024 From: j at jxself.org (Jason Self) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:11:37 -0700 Subject: Remove Sourcehut from recommendations In-Reply-To: <2763657.lGaqSPkdTl@fedora.gatas> References: <3613513.dWV9SEqChM@fedora.gatas> <20241020163618.789e0350@valencia> <2763657.lGaqSPkdTl@fedora.gatas> Message-ID: <20241020191137.32a5e3dd@valencia> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 01:54:56 +0200 hf wrote: > on your public mastodon, you proudly support Drew Devaults current > harassment campaign (stallman-report). I want to clarify that I have not made any statements supporting Drew DeVault or his views. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Can you provide the URL to one of these messages you allege I've made? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: