[Osmf-talk] Hosting OpenStreetMap source repositories on free software platforms

Mon Apr 22 21:26:41 UTC 2024

I would be concerned about anything that makes things harder for people to
contribute to OSM open source projects, particularly if the main reason is
philosophical objections that are not universally shared. For me, none of
these objections raised are sufficient to consider moving the OSM-related
projects that I currently host on GitHub to another platform.

However, I would be fully in favor of having a platform for projects that
would like to move to a git-based ecosystem but have been so far unwilling
to because of those philosophical objections. For example, if this would
allow JOSM to move to a git ecosystem, I would favor OSMF standing up a
GitLab instance for that reason alone.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:10 PM Kashish via osmf-talk <
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I'm sharing (and voicing my support for) a suggestion made by Simon Poole
> on IRC - that the OSMF set up its own Forgejo or GitLab instance. Such an
> instance could use existing OpenStreetMap accounts for authentication,
> reducing friction for OpenStreetMap contributors. Critical OpenStreetMap
> software projects, including editors, presets, etc could be encouraged to
> leave GitHub and move there.
>
> ## Why? ##
>
> Currently, the proprietary code-hosting platform GitHub has the dubious
> distinction of hosting the majority of OpenStreetMap-related software
> projects.
>
> There are many issues with this situation -
>
> 1. A growing number of potential contributors refuse to use proprietary
> platforms on principle. These contributors are naturally excluded from
> contributing to OpenStreetMap software projects hosted on GitHub.
> (Contributing via email is possible, but a terrible downgrade in UX, more
> so when you consider that platforms like GitLab and Forgejo exist.)
>
> 2. GitHub violates copyright and free software license terms - free
> software hosted on GitHub is used to train its Copilot tool, which can
> reproduce the code verbatim in legally-significant quantities, without
> regard for reproducing the attribution statement (e.g. for MIT and similar
> licenses) or copyleft clauses (e.g. GPL).
>
> 3. Proprietary platforms such as GitHub have a history of tracking users.
>
> 4. User content (such as comments) on proprietary platforms is being used
> to train LLMs without the users' informed consent. If GitHub is not doing
> this already, we can expect it to happen soon.
>
> 5. Proprietary platforms have been used in the past to inject adware and
> malware into software installer downloads. The same could happen again, if
> it has not happened already.
>
> 6. Platform lock-in. The more non-standard and GitHub-exclusive features a
> project depends on, the harder it is to migrate away from it when the time
> comes.
>
> 7. GitHub can delete repositories without the consent of the repository
> owner(s).
>
> ## Other alternatives to GitHub ##
>
> 1. [Codeberg](https://codeberg.org/) is a Forgejo instance that is
> gaining popularity among people fleeing GitHub. It includes CI/CD and
> [static web hosting](https://codeberg.page/).
>
> 2. [Radicle](https://radicle.xyz) allows hosting Git repositories,
> issues, pull requests, and other repository metadata in a peer-to-peer and
> offline-first way. However, it is in early stages and may not currently be
> suitable for large projects.
>
> 3. Gitlab.com is a service commonly suggested as an alternative. However,
> I do not recommend it because of its use of CloudFlare to - there are
> really no better words for it - harass, frustrate, and outright block Tor
> users.
>
> ## Concerns about migration ##
>
> I have urged several OpenStreetMap projects time and again to move away
> from GitHub to one of the numerous alternatives. The following objections
> are frequently raised -
>
> 1. Ease of authentication - because "everyone" has a GitHub account, it is
> allegedly easier to access. Thus, projects moving away from GitHub are
> supposedly at risk of receiving fewer contributions.
>
>    As mentioned, a self-hosted Forgejo or GitLab instance would fix this
> by providing SSO using contributors' OpenStreetMap accounts.
>
>    That said, I'm not convinced that ease of authentication is really an
> issue in practice, for three reasons - one, most forges (including
> Codeberg) support SSO with popular services, including GitHub. Two, setting
> up a new account takes two minutes and is no obstacle to someone who wishes
> to contribute. Three, Codeberg is fast growing in popularity and quite a
> few people have an account there already.
>
> 2. The work involved in migrating CI/CD actions to a new platform.
>
>    I would hope the problems with GitHub are more than justification
> enough for this. Furthermore, switching to a free software CI platform
> would be a one-time cost which makes future migrations to other forges
> easier.
>
> 3. Future-proofing - some contributors have great faith in the longevity
> of platforms run by private companies, and community-run platforms are seen
> as a downgrade in that regard.
>
> ## Conclusion ##
>
> I ask the OSMF and the OWG to consider Simon's proposal. In doing so,
> OpenStreetMap would -
>
> 1. Offer a unified, trustworthy, and independent platform for software
> collaboration.
>
> 2. Join the ranks of projects like Debian, which host a forge for their
> communities. The Debian project operates [Salsa](https://salsa.debian.org/),
> a GitLab instance for hosting Debian-related repositories.
>
> 3. Continue its own precedent of providing services for the benefit of the
> OpenStreetMap community. An example is the BigBlueButton instance, which is
> used not just for OSMF meetings but also for e.g. [online OSM editing
> workshops](https://osmcal.org/event/2492/).
>
> 4. Support its own culture of free software, extend it to source code
> collaboration services, and encourage projects to choose freer alternatives
> for hosting.
>
> I and other members of the free software community would be happy to
> assist with the migration.
>
> Kashish (contrapunctus)
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20240422/f873f977/attachment.htm>