[dist1ll]

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.

[still_grokking]

Moment, what?

SourceHut bans customers purely on ideological grounds?

If true, this would change my opinion about this service diametrically. That would result in: Never ever make business with them.

[nix23]

https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...

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.

[mariusor]

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.

[still_grokking]

The point isn't any license.

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.

[mariusor]

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.

[still_grokking]

> I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison.

Do you have any arguments that would bake this claim? Where's the difference?

> If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic […]

What are you talking about? This does not happen as it would be illegal. At least in civilized countries.

(Given a court order for lawful interception there may be exceptions to that, of course).

> net neutrality

This term means something else.

> we need HTTPS

For other reasons.

One of them being rogue states that snoop on people's traffic. [Not looking in the direction of north America now].

> VPNs

That's similar to HTTPS.

Also it circumvents state level censoring, which is needed by now in quite some countries.

> Tor

That's even more in the direction of hiding form state surveillance.

Your ISP usually knows that you're using Tor…

> Dark Web

That's a very unclear term, btw. And it has nothing to do with anything an ISP does.

> but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves

Like I said: Not in civilized countries, as this would be a breach of the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence.

> law enforcement

That's a tangent. Everybody besides a culprit needs to cooperate with law enforcement.

> denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols

You could do this in theory. But you wouldn't be selling internet access anymore in this case. This would be like AOL or Compuserve back then.

[nix23]

>I think you're mixing up what "freedom" is in regards to open source.

I don't talk about opensource or any license, i talk about that when i pay for a service i can host any code i created for whatever use it is.

But talking about licenses (since you don't think it's one of the freedom's) that's exactly what definition of opensource means:

https://opensource.org/osd

>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

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.

[mariusor]

Yes, but the service is not the code. The license applies to the code. I can't believe you can't perceive that distinction.

And when you pay for a service, you can do whatever that service allows you to do, which in this case is "not" crypto-currency projects.

[nix23]

> I can't believe you can't perceive that distinction.

You had that misunderstanding not i.

>you can do whatever that service allows you to do

Yeah look i stop here if you think that's a good decision.

[nmz]

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.

[kuschku]

SourceHut offers CI. People end up just using the CI for litecoin/bitcoin/eth/etc mining or the storage for chia mining.

[dist1ll]

Wrong. See Drew DeVault's (founder of SourceHut) comment on exactly this topic:

> Q: How much of this is due to not wanting build/pipeline servers getting abused for mining purposes?

> A: None: the mining incidents stopped entirely when we started charging for CI and it stopped being profitable to do it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33404713

As you can see, CI had nothing to do with their decision. The ToS changes specifically refer to source code hosting.