Re: Claiming the "debian" account on GitHub ? (was: Re: Packaging on GitHub ?)
BTW -- what would be the license for this creative endeavor?
(CC BY-SA 3.0?) ;)
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> I have just submitted a pull request in an attempt to make it more
> factual while staying neutral and informative ;) Here was my take:
> README
> ======
> [Debian](http:www.debian.org) packages, maintains and distributes some
> works that are developed using GitHub. This account was created to
> facilitate push/pull interactions with the upstream developers of
> such projects. If you maintain such a package, please feel free to
> join this group and mirror it here.
> This account is not intended to serve as the canonical (specified with
> Vcs-* fields of debian/control) location for corresponding Debian
> source packages. Most often such repositories should be made
> available on the Debian project's public forge
> [Alioth](http:git.debian.org) to guarantee
> [autonomy](http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement).
> Tips
> ----
> You might find following tools available from Debian useful for
> your interaction with github
> [github-backup](http://guthub.com/joeyh/github-backup)
> Back up everything GitHub publishes about the repository
> (forks, issues, comments, wikis, milestones, pull requests)
> Acknowledgments
> ---------------
> Many thanks to the GitHub admins for their prompt action to release the
> previous (unused) "Debian" account.
> Disclaimers
> -----------
> This account is not an endorsement of GitHub by Debian.
> -- Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:11:55 +0900
> -- Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com> Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:22:03 -0400
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > On Thu, June 14, 2012 16:56, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:31:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >> I have not added links to their competitors, as I think that it would
> > >> be bad taste, but yes, I invite every developer to consider Free
> > >> alternatives such as Gitorious or Branchable.
> > > To be blunt, I think that our advocacy for software freedoms is more
> > > important than good taste.
> > I'm surprised by this dichotomy. It seems perfectly well possible to both
> > operate in good taste and advocate software freedoms.
> > > Given how you worded the README (i.e. along
> > > the lines of "some of the software we work with is already on
> > > GitHub..."), it would be entirely appropriate to recommend favoring
> > > Gitorious, Branchable or similar services over GitHub.
> > I find this indeed not in good taste. We are using their service, for
> > free. We have many platforms of our own we can use for such advocacy. The
> > current proposal, that we make it clear that usage does not constitute
> > endorsement, makes the situation perfectly clear to anyone without using
> > the free resources we've been given by them to promote their competitors.
> > Cheers,
> > Thijs
> > p.s. I just bought some groceries and the supermarket didn't publish the
> > source code to their cash register, so I may be biased towards non-free
> > services.
--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
Reply to: