I have also moved my git repositories to a self-hosted NUC. I have not yet bothered with a HTTP frontend to share it with the world, mostly because I don't want to provide AI scrapers with content and don't want to put the work in to block them.

It's a shame that all these companies that benefited from open source have poisoned the industry like this

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

lloydatkinson 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I also have a self hosted Foregejo on a Pi (but probably not much longer) that acts as a mirror of my GitHub. The main issues I keep facing are:

- Repositories seem to mirror fine for a few weeks and stop. Pretty useless. I have a PAT token for it that does not expire, and yet it seems to claim otherwise, despite the token working elsewhere when I test it.

- Sometimes there is nothing in the logs, sometimes it's the database being locked for some reason. The only thing that uses the database is Forgejo.

- So far I haven't been able to tell if this is Forgejo, crappy SD IO on the Pi causing database locks, or Forgejo sucking at being a mirror.

▲

huijzer 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Probably the mirror? I have zero problems like that on my Forgejo Pi setup. I am not mirroring

	▲	jurgenburgen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		SD card seems the likeliest culprit. Some of them are really bad quality.

▲

echelon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's a shame that all these companies that benefited from open source have poisoned the industry like this

Open Source and the OSI are an industry plant. Look at who sponsors it.

The monopoly hyperscaler conglomerates get free labor and use it to build the world we despise: tracking panopticons, phones we can't install things on, device attestation, browser monoculture with no adblock, etc. etc.

Google made people fall in love with BSD/MIT, and look what it did.

Just a few of the classic plays:

"That Belongs to Us Now" - (1) vendors build stuff like Elasticsearch and Redis, (2) the hyperscalers yoink it into their proprietary offerings and take all the profits, (3) original authors and their companies starve.

"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" - (1) vendors take an open source project like KTHML or Linux and build their version, (2) they flood the market with their offering, pushing out the competitors, (3) they use anti-competitive means to get their thing in front of all eyeballs, (4) once they have marketshare, they do evil things like add tracking and remove freedoms

Open Source needs to replaced with "freedom for the people, companies must pay". Source available shareware with anti-hyperscaler teeth.

Even Richard Stallman's licenses are not strong enough. CC BY-NC-SA is better.

"Pure" Open Source is corporate welfare. It was a mistake. It enabled giants to hang us with our own rope.

▲

nathanielks 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Open Source and the OSI are an industry plant. Look at who sponsors it.

This is ignorant to the history of Open Source software. Software has been open long before it was subsidized by large corporations.

"Computer software was created in the early half of the 20th century.[2][3][4] In the 1950s and into the 1960s, almost all softwares were produced by academics and corporate researchers working in collaboration,[5] often shared as public-domain software." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...

	▲	zesterer 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're talking about a different thing to OP. OP is talking about the OSI and the specific incarnation of 'open-source' that came with it, you are talking about the more general social pattern of open collaboration.

▲

bee_rider 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One problem with all of these licenses is that however the code is available, we can’t practically prevent the LLM companies from training on it (especially given that they don’t respect IP laws anyway). No idea what to do about this. Wonder if communities will have to move to some kind of fractured system where source is gated behind a login.

Rough times out there for transparent organizations.

▲

embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why can't others just be "Others I disagree with"? Why it has to be some grand conspiracy?

I'm all for open source, most of what I do is released as MIT, almost never "Free Software", still doing the same thing since LLMs appeared, regardless of everything else.

I'm a real person, have nothing to do with OSI but willing to explain my position, as long as you take it as real opinions held by a real person, instead of going into conspiracy theory land. Ask me anything, I'll give you my honest perspective.

▲

mghackerlady 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find non-commercial licenses too extreme. People selling your free software or using it in a commercial way so long as they respect the license is a good thing

▲

wutwutwat 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When you come into a convo saying even Stallman isn't extreme enough, it's probably a good time to take a step back and evaluate your life.

▲

grim_io 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't see a reason anyone needs to stop and evaluate their life for this reason.

Is it a danger to anyone, or damaging in any way? I think not.

▲

wutwutwat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Does one have to be a danger before they should evaluate their life? I sure hope not.

▲

grim_io 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't feel comfortable telling anyone they should evaluate their life for such a silly reason.

Can? Sure. Should? Very questionable.

I'd call your statement more "extreme" than any of the stallman's statements on software.

	▲	wutwutwat 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		surethingderbud

▲

cyclopeanutopia an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you should take many steps back and seriously reevaluate your life.

▲

echelon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm actually a capitalist.

But our 25 year lax regulatory environment has created a world where the largest players abuse consumers and the competitive ecosystem.

Open source is one of the many strategies these companies have abused to create grave harm to our society. It's let them get further with our support and with less expenditure. It's given them an ethical smoke screen.

- Social media algorithms are the tobacco products of our century. Kids are growing up with a distorted sense of self worth, people are getting angrier and more polarized, and all of it is highly addictive - all to fuel corporate profits.

- The most popular and important computer form factor is controlled by a duopoly and we can't even own / repair / install / have rights to our devices.

- All hardware is becoming locked to device attestation, meanwhile companies are lobbying for "age verification" (read: full-on identity tracking).

- Distribution is being locked to monopolies. 92% of "URL bars" are owned by one company, and typing something into a computer goes through a bidding war protection racket.

I can go on and on about it. I shouldn't even have to. You know this.

A lot of this is because of a lack of proper competition. Since the DOJ / FTC / EU / ASEAN are being toothless (the latter are slowly waking up), the next best thing we can do is take away their open source abuse. Stop letting them use our work against us and the rest of the population.

▲

MyHonestOpinon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I share your worries, but I don't blame open source for it. They would have done the same (or worst) without it.

Also, open source is one more justification on why we need to increase taxes on the very rich. At this point all of them have built their fortunes on it. Just like they do on the rest of public infrastructure.

▲

wutwutwat 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hope you find your peace.

▲

master-lincoln 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is all expected in capitalism as these are mechanisms to extract more profit.

We need more socialists in power...

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

jimmaswell 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why would someone gladly provide their work as open source but draw the line at AI reading it and using that knowledge to help more programmers later? It makes no sense to me. I actively want all of my code to be read by AI.

	▲	hnlmorg 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A couple of valid reasons: + they don’t want to pay the bandwidth costs + they don’t want to help train a model that might ultimately put them out of work. I don’t personally agree that AI are taking out jobs, but I do think it’s still a reasonable concern others have so I would sympathise if that were the rationale.
	▲	antonyt 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Doesn't seem inconsistent to me. I may want my code to be open source so that other humans can read it, understand it, build on it, and contribute to it. I may also have a philosophical opposition to generative AI at the same time - there are plenty of environmental, societal, and intellectual-property costs that some may find unconscionable.
	▲	repelsteeltje an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's kind of breaking the social contract. Licences were drafted, conferences were held, and endless flamewars tried to codify what it means to collaboratively build, distribute, own and use open software. Then came the model trainers, ignoring the entire discourse, reasoning: "if I can download it, it's mine too use". And then basically selling the resulting tech back to the community. Not unlike big tech extracting money from open source, but at least the latter usually (somewhat maliciously) complied with the license.
	▲	deaton 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]