The end result is that it's no longer possible to participate in "GitHub hosted open source" without actually being a member of GitHub.
The end result is that it's no longer possible to participate in "GitHub hosted open source" without actually being a member of GitHub.
In other words, GitHub is no longer suitable to host open source repositories because of all the closed "extras" it adds on top.
They're shady AF, but some features require an account not because they're moat water but for some other reason.
It's clear the "extinguish" phase of Microsoft's open source venture has started. There're plenty of very good alternatives, it's time to move on.
probably for the best.
http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html
Unless you count your ISP of course.
Are these now also no longer "open source"?
No.
None of this is somehow a core requirement of "open source".
Since those are "fixed costs" per repo rather than per search, they'd now be much more expensive per search if they were only used by logged-out users.
Pure outside speculation of course.
An account has always been required for active participation, e.g. committing directly to any repo, submitting a PR, opening an issue, etc.
> That's a lot to give for "I want to browse a piece of code someone made for free".
You can still do this. All repositories are accessible without signing in.
I'm not saying it's a deal that makes sense for everyone. But it's certainly a barter trade and is well within their prerogative to offer.
This is just degrading in to conspiratorial FUD.
Or to put it another way: It's a surprise you need a Github account to use ("participate in") Github?