Follow

Dear @gitlab, after reading this, I am ashamed to be using your product:

gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitl

We will stop using it as soon as we can manage to and I will stop recommending you to others. Unlike you, we don’t associate with folks incompatible with our values.

Shame on you.

@aral damn it, I was going to move to them after Github (who is bad enough) defended working with ICE.

Any idea what platform you may use in the future?

@danarel @aral Gitea's relatively easy to self-host, if that's an option

@lifning what I don't get is, why dont they host their own code?

@danarel @aral

If you don't want to self-host, @codeberg is worth considering. They are a German not-for-profit dedicated to free software and collaboration.
They offer free hosting and voluntary membership if you want to contribute.

@ck @danarel @aral @codeberg Looks like they run on Gitea, which I was going to say is a solid alternative: gitea.io

@matt @danarel @aral
Yes, they are. They are also pretty involved in upstream development of Gitea itself, ie. contributing code back to the project and such.

@aral I’m always surprised by how little love BitBucket gets. It’s low on nonsense so far.

@danarel @aral I'd always vote for Phabricator, although I know it's not for everyone (it's very unlike GitHub/GitLab/etc in its interface in many ways).

@keithzg @aral @danarel Unfortunately, Phabricator/Phacility is hosted on GitHub, instead of being self-hosted. :blobcatwaitwhat:

@aidalgol @danarel @aral Err, what? The official source is self-hosted by Phabricator at https://secure.phabricator.com/diffusion/, and the GitHub mirror even says "We do not accept pull requests through GitHub".

@keithzg @aral @danarel Oh, good! Their site footer gave me the impression that they were using GitHub only. That and I did not see any obvious link to the Phabricator-hosted Phabricator source code.

@danarel @aral SourceHut seems to be fairly decent. sourcehut.org/ That was always my second choice after GitLab.

@danarel @aral I'm going to throw out sr.ht as well, since I haven't seen anyone else mention it already.

@danarel @aral Oh, sr.ht is the same thing as sourcehut, which was already suggested.

@danarel @aral

This statement only applies to the corporation called GitLab Inc., not to the free software product called GitLab Community Edition. You can still use any one of the many independent instances running GitLab CE.

A CEO's statement about his company policy doesn't suddenly discredit the work of hundreds of contributors who put years into making GitLab CE.

@aral what's significant to me is that if this was truly their position -- with no caveats, with no political motives -- they could just as easily have said nothing. Instead, in the age of ICE contracts, they went out of their way to include this so that they would have something to point to when people asked why they were, idk, providing deployment tools to Palantir or some shit

@aral @gitlab wow, this is shockingly bad.

Also, “we do not discuss politics in the workplace”? Which century are you living in? You can’t avoid politics! This is just gaslighting people into accepting the political positions of those in leadership under the guise of an apolitical stance.

@szbalint @aral @gitlab "we don't discuss politics" actually means "we mandate centrism"

@szbalint @aral @gitlab Agreed this is really bad. That addendum not only gives them a framework to justify collaborating with horrible people, but furthermore they "welcome everyone outside of [the] restrictions" of "trade compliance laws". And the commit is from the founder and CEO himself, who seems to be a major figure in the organisation. The text has gone live about.gitlab.com/company/strat

@aral @gitlab
Why do you feel this is wrong (doing business with someone who does not share your values)?
I'd dare say this is a very broad concept.
I'll risk saying everyone in this thread has published GPLed code, and it can be used by anyone, regardless of their intentions. Should we restrict our licenses because of this?

PS - I'm not by any means implying you are somehow wrong, I'm just trying to understand your perspective!

@FPinaMartins @gitlab IBM did business with the Nazis and helped them carry out the Holocaust.

@djayroma @FPinaMartins @gitlab How about you take your Godwin point and shove it up your smug ass? Take a fucking look around you, history is about to repeat itself unless we do something about it and you’re spending your time parroting stale Internet memes in a misconstrued calculation that your privilege will save you when it happens. Then again, what am I saying, having just glanced at your handle, you’re probably going to be wearing the latest Hugo boss attire while holding the door to it.

Nazi ment. 

@aral @gitlab
Ok, fair ponit, albeit, if I recall "IBM and the Hollocaust" correctlly, the values of the people in IBM responsible for helping with the holocaust were aligned with the nazis' at the time. A caluse such as @gitlab would not have had any effect.

I also consider this a *very* slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? Should religous people not do business with atheists? Should capitalists not do business with socialists? Should vegeterians not do business with "meat eaters"? 1/2

@FPinaMartins @aral @gitlab people are actually talking about creating licenses with ethical restrictions!

Because we live in a time when software developed for innocuous reasons can easily be used for the purposes of mass surveillance, ethnic cleansing, state censorship, etc.

Moral people who build tools and run services are asking themselves how they contribute to such things and how they can prevent it.

@nev @aral @gitlab
Can you please provide me with some "starter" resource links for this issue so I can learn more?
The way I see it (before studying the subject in depth) is that license restrictions (even if laden with good intentions) are easier to abuse for discrimination than something that is not restricted end up being used for nefarious purposes.
I am, of course, willing to change my opinion, based on more information.
Thank you in advance.

@nev @FPinaMartins @aral @gitlab I mean licenses with ethical restrictions are a bad idea, but for different reasons

@nev @FPinaMartins @aral @gitlab how do you handle different incompatible ethical licenses? or ones that have, say, SWERF or TERF bullshit in them? being non-viral could fix this, but what's the point then? how do you translate ethical concerns into legal terms, nevermind enforcing them? dealing with ethical problems at the license level is a mistake

@a_breakin_glass @nev @FPinaMartins @aral @gitlab minimal terms, like the UNHRC, and not including software people don't want you to? intellectual property is theft and the gpl is a clever way to use it to subvert itself but we're never gonna have a perfect way to guarantee all freedoms except those that restrict freedoms

I think it's good and admirable to try and I'd love to see someone getting in trouble for breaking copyright law because they used my code to bomb a hospital

@a_breakin_glass @nev @FPinaMartins @aral @gitlab well, you'd have to clone libraries with licenses you don't like, the same way that already happens

Some people would consider this cost perfectly acceptable

@aral @gitlab I can't work out what's going on from the merge requests. Can I get a to;dg (too opaque; didn't get)?

@aral @maarteuh @gitlab "vetting customers is time consuming and potentially distracting"

If you think vetting customers is "time consuming and distracting", wait till you experience the consequences of NOT vetting your customers

@nev
Ok so we can start doing nothing, bad people eat bread too... They get sunlight, they drive cars... This is nihilism, stop staring at your belly and stop judging people on... What ?
@aral @maarteuh @gitlab

@djayroma @nev @aral @maarteuh @gitlab um, baby jails. I'm judging people who put babies in jail. That's not a very hard ethical bar to clear

@nev @djayroma @aral @maarteuh @gitlab right. Start (or don't stop) with this very simple vetting at least

@nev @aral @maarteuh @gitlab Companies in the US are actually legally required to vet customers. If GitLab don't know that, they should try doing business with a few companies on the Denied Parties List and see how that works out for them.
cbp.gov/trade/trade-community/

@nev @aral @maarteuh What happens to the vetted customer?

When supermarkets stop selling food to 60 million Trump voters what do you think they will do?

Perhaps their respect for property rights will be diminished.
@aral so in other words I should just pirate gitlab EE and be done with all of this dancing around I'm doing because Pleroma don't want to be sued

@kaniini I mean you could just use CE; that’s what we’ve been doing on our own server but I’m going to move to something else after reading that crap.

@switchingsoftware
I think its time to open up a section about ethical git/project hosting now

@aral

@ck @switchingsoftware @aral

I've just seen this :-)

=> mstdn.swiso.org/@switchingsoft

> Please have a look at #Gitea or #Gogs, both free alternatives 🙂
>
> gitea.io/en-us/
>
> gogs.io/
>
>We are hosting our git repos on codeberg.org which is based on Gitea :
>
> codeberg.org/

@r3vlibre ... additionally, I just noticed that codeberg.org has an account on the fediverse 🙂

@codeberg

@r3vlibre @ck @switchingsoftware @aral
I'm using Gitea every day as my main forge, it's not as complete as Gitlab, bu for me and little groups it works very well, it's easy to install and to update (just one executable).

Gitlab, capitalism, shitty people 

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!