Re: github mirror of lilypond?

[Erlend Aasland]

(Sorry for the messed up indent/quote level. Apple Mail is a pain in the butt 
sometimes.)

> On 19 Jan 2020, at 21:31, Erlend Aasland <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On 19 Jan 2020, at 18:19, David Kastrup 
> <address@hidden<mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> What is of concern is the whole metadata about issues and their handling
> and resolution, the stuff you propose moving to GitHub in the first
> place.
> 
> Just for the record; I’m not suggesting GitHub as the one and only 
> alternative. I think I mentioned some of the GH alternatives in my original 
> email, IIRC.
> 
> I understand the concern about metadata and such, but a lot of that 
> information is already present in the commits (both as metadata in the 
> commits and as commit messages), so I guess you’ve already put uncomfortably 
> much information in there already…
> 
> The current use of Savannah hosting for that reason is not a whole lot
> more than a vote of confidence to GNU/FSF/Stallman (which at the current
> point of time are more separate entities than they historically were)
> but not of practical importance.
> 
> True.
> 
> Our current ties to Google (via Rietveld) and SourceForge (for
> Allura/issue tracking) are practically speaking more tenuous to replace.
> Of course they deserve replacing, but doing so by picking GitHub would
> definitely be a much more invasive step for the project than just
> entertaining a Git mirror.
> 
> True.
> 
> Make no mistake: our current dependencies in that regard are of lukewarm
> quality concerning the "Free Software" regard and are a crutch
> technically.  So a change is definitely called for.
> 
> True.
> 
> But I don’t consider GitHub a nobrainer or I'd likely have an account there: 
> I chose
> not to the last time I read their terms of use, and while I haven't
> rechecked since then, its change of ownership does not inspire
> confidence.  Now of course the terms and guarantees then might have been
> chosen in order not to interfere with potential high-powered
> acquisitions, a goal many startups work towards to, and may be something
> that Microsoft does not need to bother with.  So in theory they might
> even have improved.  I'd need to check again.
> 
> I haven’t delved into this either, but I know that they “support GPL” 
> (whatever that means).
> 
> But LilyPond is a size where taking out a commercial offer would be pretty 
> expensive, and
> taking out a free offer means you have nothing to rely or insist on
> since there hasn't been an exchange of considerations involved.
> 
> True. But, there are GitHub alternatives that are free, for example Gitea.
> 
> 
> Erlend
> 
> 
> --
> David Kastrup
>