SourceHut is more reliable than GitHub. I mean this in the truest sense of the word, I can rely on SourceHut not to act against my interests, both ideologically and just basic usefulness.
I thought so too at first, until the owner changed their TOS to forbid all crypto and blockchain related projects, essentially kicking me off their platform.
So no, it's not reliable. The platform is at the behest of a small group of ideologists, who might change their stance on any topic on a whim.
GitHub on the contrary continues to host code that has been OFAC sanctioned. I'd rather stay with them.
Yes, it's a really bad move, you pay for the service but the nature of your code is not welcomed.
Like you i was a bit shocked too...well and a bit sad since i was thinking that a hosting i pay for should give me more freedom and not less, and that code(knowledge?) should be free.
I think you're mixing up what "freedom" is in regards to open source.
Sourcehut's code gives a user the freedom to use it for whatever they want - including hosting their own crypto-currency projects.
sr.ht the "service" on the other hand is not required to do a thing and denying users the ability to host those projects doesn't contradict any licence the code has been released under.
The point is that's it's not the business of a hoster to decide what people may host.
A hoster gets money for hosting things. Ideally the hoster does not even know what he's hosting. (Until there is a problem with that that someone else points out to the hoster; which the hoster should than just ignore in case this someone isn't an authority with a valid court order in hands).
As a parallel: Just imagine your ISP would start to filter the web sites you may visit based on some arbitrary ideological believes. That's more or less the same to what's happening on SourceHut, imho.
I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic would we have debates about net neutrality, would we need HTTPS?, would VPNs be a thing?, would we need Tor?, would there be a Dark Web? Granted I'm over dramatizing the situation, but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves, or for law enforcement, denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols, injecting content into non-secure content, etc.
I can understand one being upset that sourcehut's policy changed "after" paying for an account, but you can just stop paying for the service and move to a different forge. Being butthurt that people have different principles than you is not cool.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I wouldn't blame them considering most crypto related things are scams. To protect the platform, its best that it just not be there. While github has the money to defend youtube-dl, the truth is the RIAA killed it.
If you're doing scammy things, stick to fossil and host it on your own.
Agreed. Moved all my stuff from GitHub to Sourcehut. Haven't looked back. Well, okay, I look at the trending repos and star some that are interesting, but I don't host my personal projects on there.
So no, it's not reliable. The platform is at the behest of a small group of ideologists, who might change their stance on any topic on a whim.
GitHub on the contrary continues to host code that has been OFAC sanctioned. I'd rather stay with them.