[ranaexmachina]

> To me, I don't really see a difference between GitHub and sr.ht. Companies can start out with these "friendly" attitudes towards FOSS, but when they reel in many paying customers, they can pretty easily, and without consequence, change their policies to be more aggressive (geared towards profit) and greedy. It just seems inevitable to me.

But with sourcehut you can just host it yourself or find someone else who hosts that as everything is FOSS.

If you don't want to use the built-in CI, wiki and issue tracker, then Git is already decentralized. You can push and pull easily from and to multiple sources. Git is already built for that exact use case.

[capableweb]

> If you don't want to use the built-in CI, wiki and issue tracker, then Git is already decentralized. You can push and pull easily from and to multiple sources. Git is already built for that exact use case.

Git is a great protocol. You can pull/push to HTTPS servers, SSH servers, even directories (so via NFS if you so wish). Really, Git is really awesome in that way.

But Git itself is not a "code hosting service" that parent asked for. That requires more. Something like Fossil SCM would probably fit better, or git-ssb as I mentioned in another comment here.