On 12/03/2012 11:49 AM, Joshua Gay wrote:
Even if we put aside the freedom of network services argument,
let's
consider the software that both gitorious and github distribute and ask
users to run locally when visiting their respective websites.
Now, since these are the sites where you are hosting the copyleft-next,
for the sake of this discussion instead of referring to them as
gitorious or github, I will simply refer to these as your sites and the
software on them as software you are distributing.
First let's look at <
https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next>.
Here you are offering the following software programs to users and you
are both asking and encouraging them to run it:
*
<
https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com/assets/frameworks-57542e0cba1...
*
<
https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com/assets/github-650ee832daf5d46...
The above software you are distributing and asking users to run is
poorly licensed proprietary software.
I had overlooked the JavaScript issue, I admit. In that one respect, I
agree that Gitorious is superior and commendable, although I don't
think on balance it offers anything not achievable through
self-hosting other than a kind of limited painful convenience.
I think this does come down to a kind of potential
marketing/advertising/evangelization issue (which may mean it's a
silly thing to even think about or that it *is* worth thinking about).
- RF