Migration to independent platform for provision of source code

[linux-lukas]

A. Problem / Goal

Since the purchase of GitHub by Microsoft in 2018, a dependence on the BigTech corporation can no longer be denied.

On the one hand, I can understand why GitHub was chosen as the platform for making source code available: "Everyone is here".

On the other hand, I see the danger of a vendor-lockin effect and that open source projects become centrally dependent on Microsoft. In my eyes, this is very dangerous for free and open source software and hardware projects.

In the medium and long term, the goal would be to become independent of GitHub and thus of Microsoft. The Gitea-based Codeberg project of Codeberg e. V. in Berlin would be a good choice here.

There are also (legal) problems with compliance with the licence of GitHub functions, such as the co-pilot.

B. Solution

My considered solution to the problem described in A. would be the following:

1. A user of this open source project creates a user account on https://codeberg.org/
2. If necessary: This user creates an organisation for the project.
3. A "personal access token" is created on the GitHub account, which has appropriate rights to the organisation repositories, using the developer options in the settings.
4. all repositories would be migrated with this access token into the ownership of the organisation created in step two.

Regarding step four, there is an entry in the documentation of Codeberg: https://docs.codeberg.org/advanced/migrating-repos/

C. Alternatives

A possible alternative would be to perform the first three steps as described in B. A possible alternative would be to perform the first three steps as described in B., and modify the fourth step to include a mirror of GitHub. So that all issues and such that would be created in the GitHub repository would be transferred to the Codeberg repository.

D. Responsibilities

I would see the responsibility in the owners of the repository and, if necessary, additional project participants.

E. Other

Basically, a look at the documentation of Codeberg is not unwise: https://docs.codeberg.org

Should it be necessary to manage repositories in organisations, this is also possible under Codeberg, see: https://docs.codeberg.org/collaborating/create-organization/

Regarding licensing there is a page in the documentation of Codeberg: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/

F. Risk

Last but not least, it must be assumed that people could potentially create fewer issues because it is a new platform and it is less known. It remains to be seen how and when the principle of decentralisation or federation will be implemented in Gitea, on which Codeberg, the GitHub alternative, is based, see the following article: https://social.exozy.me/@ta180m/108631221939677386

[throwaway-d]

@zedeus I believe you should mirror your repo to Codeberg because:

1. Codeberg is libre, free, open-source, privacy-friendly, non-profit
2. GitHub is privacy-invasive, proprietary
3. People on Codeberg like me can contribute to the project
4. GitHub can take down your repos

Here are some sources for you:

1. https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub
2. https://docs.codeberg.org/advanced/migrating-repos
3. https://github.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech/issues/33
4. https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/discussions/1894
5. https://cadence.moe/blog/2022-07-03-git-forge-opinions-github-gitlab-gitea-sourcehut
6. https://github.com/andersju/webbkoll/issues/35

FAQ

1. Q: - GitHub Actions -- this is a huge time saver for me

   • Forcing all contributors to modify their current setup and move to another hosting -- we may just lose contributors in the end

   A: As I said, we only just mirror. The repo will be available and contributable on both sites.

2. Q: - Transferring issues -- is this possible? Issues here represent a technical knowledge base we can't live without

   • Transferring wiki and all edit history -- possible?

   A: Yes, it is possible. a. Example for issues:

• https://github.com/andersju/webbkoll/issues/35
• https://codeberg.org/dataskydd.net/webbkoll/issues/35
• https://github.com/andersju/webbkoll/issues/33
• https://codeberg.org/dataskydd.net/webbkoll/issues/33
• https://github.com/zyachel/quetre/issues/7
• https://codeberg.org/zyachel/quetre/issues/7

b. Example for commits:

• https://codeberg.org/dataskydd.net/webbkoll/commit/6ddfbc6c71ab92f754252dd4904cf49fb19672a6
• https://github.com/andersju/webbkoll/commit/6ddfbc6c71ab92f754252dd4904cf49fb19672a6

c. Example for wiki:

• https://github.com/Freeyourgadget/Gadgetbridge/wiki/Home/_history?page=2
• https://codeberg.org/Freeyourgadget/Gadgetbridge/wiki/Home?action=_revision

3. Q: Despite having mirror/s, the project will still continue to be operated from GitHub for development, so having yet another mirror doesn't solve anything.

   A: You can create issues, contribute, view the repos on there without going to GitHub! Example:

   • https://github.com/libredirect/libredirect
   • https://codeberg.org/LibRedirect/libredirect
   • https://github.com/zyachel/quetre
   • https://codeberg.org/zyachel/quetre

4. Q: How does Codeberg mirror comments from GitHub?

   A: It uses Access Token.

5. Q: My repos are very bandwidth-intensive projects, and I have my doubts as to whether the owner(s) of Codeberg would be prepared for such a massive bandwidth rate increase. I've also had individual projects be disabled on small sites before due to taking too much bandwidth.

   A: Oh.. I think you should directly ask https://docs.codeberg.org/contact/ about if they are ready for massive bandwidth rate increase.

[throwaway-d]

BTW, I wrote a separate repo about this: https://codeberg.org/Recommendations/Mirror_to_Codeberg

[throwaway-d]

@zedeus It has been one year already… Please take some time and take a look at this issue.

[oifj34f34f]

Nitter provides a JavaScript-free frontend to Twitter. Ironically, GitHub, where it is hosted, cannot open directories without JavaScript..

2024 update: GitHub is now completely unusable without JavaScript