Move to GitLab?

[spk121]

GitLab seems to be where the mindshare is for the GNOME community these days, and the CI infrastructure has come a long way over the last couple of years.

I'm happy enough with GitHub, but, I don't want it to be a barrier. If it did move, we could get it into a project-named repo, instead under spk121.

Thoughts?

[LordYuuma]

I think it'd be wise to move to GNOME Gitlab rather than https://gitlab.com, because that's where the GNOME folk actually are and if Gitlab does something unethical, chances are that GNOME folk won't simply roll with it. Remaining on Github is an option, albeit probably not a wise one, given that Microsoft trains their AI on GPL'd code and doesn't think for a minute to also apply the GPL on the generated code.

[amano-kenji]

I prefer codeberg because gitlab interface is unintuitive. Codeberg runs on forgejo which is a fork of gitea.

And, AI coding is good. In a few years, AI is going to be used by everyone. Even plumbers will use AIs. I will use AIs as much as possible. Don't get left behind. If you don't use new disruptive technologies, you will be left behind.

People who were stuck in stone age were wiped out by those who adapted to bronze tools. People who don't use AIs will be defeated by those who integrate AIs.

If you don't adapt to new disruptive technologies, evolution will wipe you out.

given that Microsoft trains their AI on GPL'd code and doesn't think for a minute to also apply the GPL on the generated code.

This is the kind of friction that slows down co-operation between open-source projects. Linus torvalds didn't think too much about implications of GPL. He just wanted open source. GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3. Too much friction.

What I can say is that copyfree licenses will accelerate both closed-source and open-source projects. My personal policy is to use copyfree licenses and tip the balance toward open-source by creating media contents that say people should help those in need and all information belongs to everyone freely without restrictions.

My philosophy is information and tools should be available freely without restrictions to anyone who can afford them. If information and tools are not available to everyone without restrictions, they will fall into the hands of a small group of bad people. Either everyone has fair access to them, or a small group of selfish hoarders will gain unfair advantages which they will use to enslave others.

In practice, GPL makes sure that only rich people who can afford expensive lawyers will ship software binaries that are incompatible with GPL. For example, while gnu guix is too poor to ship zfs kernel module binaries, canonical has enough money to pay laywers in case Oracle sues canonical for shipping zfs(CDDL) kernel module binaries. Artificial restrictions that do not exist in nature will only make the super rich(google, amazon, facebook, ...) richer. Only the super rich can ignore restrictions. They can afford lawyers and buy judges and even public opinions. They have trillions of dollars.

The only thing that applies to everyone equally is natural laws like gravity. Natural laws do not want money. They have teeth that automatically sink into everyone who violates them. Trillion dollars cannot make gravity go away. The sun burns hot, and doesn't want money. It cannot be bribed to burn a little less hot for climate alarmists. One of natural laws is the law of freedom which can be stated as "arbitrary man-made rules make humans less free, and God's objective morality makes humans free". The law of freedom also has teeth that automatically bite you. It cannot be circumvented.