Sure, I know a lot of projects have been on GH since before MS bought it, but they’ve owned it for quite a while now, so we really should be seeing better migration out by now, no?
Codeberg is nonprofit which seems more in the spirit of the Linux ecosystem overall. GH is for-profit…
EDIT: All right, all right, I’ve gotten schooled. Thank you, O wise ones; I didn’t realize how much Microsoft literally depends on Linux, among other things. I will proceed to shut up.
I’d like to think that is so but some here will argue non-copyleft licenses are “more free”. Ime they don’t reply after I point out that’s the freedom to deny others freedom.
It’s freedom nonetheless.
Widen the scope to consider downsteam users (the dev’s user’s users and beyond) and now the potential lack of any software freedom makes it freedom muchtheless.
So you want to restrict dev’s freedom to choose whichever license they want?
I prevent others from relicensing my works under less-free licenses or making them non-free by using Copyleft/share-a-like licenses.