Does GitHub charge companies when keeping only opensource code? Like the big companies like Google, Microsoft have lots of code there - who is paying for it? Or this is just free marketing for GH?
Github hosts a lot of your code for free as long as you're ok with everyone seeing it. If you want to put your company's source on it, you need to pay for private. It's an even clearer pricing tier segmentation than Unfuddle's.
Sort of off topic, but I've always wondered if github charges larger orgs for hosting their projects like this. It seems like google and and microsoft get tons of free bandwidth from github to the point of being unsustainable w/o charging.
According to https://github.com/about, they have 59 employees and have never taken VC. Since the opensource projects don't pay, the math suggests that yes, quite a lot of organizations are paying to host confidential code.
My company currently pays for GitHub hosting for unlimited private repos and X contributors.
Doesn't the fact that GitHub makes the enterprise pay for usage make it more likely that GitHub will be around longer than Google Code?
Honestly, if GitHub can stick around for another 10-15 years that would be ideal. By that time I should either be out of the industry or off to another company that uses something other than GitHub.
> They don't give their source away, but they give their service away.
github is not open source - they have a closed source service that is available for free, with limitations. Unless you meant that they are building a business based on an open source piece of software, which is a little different from e.g. Sentry.
The question is, how many other companies do that? Would be great if more companies could go through their used libraries and spend $500k. Github doesn't have to make up for all the other users not paying.
I'm a big proponent of open source and I'm usually not nice with bad moves of GitHub. For example, i find stupid to use vscode and believe that it is open source when it is a lie.
But, in that case, I think that the things that are put to charge GitHub are not right.
I think that the idea is nice and it is fair from open source code. Anyone is free of downloading free software and doing something similar, and it is nice.
I just find the product itself is stupid, and it is for users to be smart enough not to use that knowing that their is a risk of them being sued for involuntary violating copyright. And GitHub might be at risk if it is a paid service as the companies could sue them back by pretending that they expected the code generated by GitHub to be safe for commercial use.
Also, I would think that GH would have abused if they used 'private repo' codes to train their model without permission.
Github is a full-on game-changing company. They seem to be doing most everything right.
By charging developers money to host non-free projects, they've aligned their interests with developers: their customers. This means you get a no-bullshit interface which is exactly what I want from my project hosting.
Except Github is closed-source and they make money on private repositories, i.e. closed-source. So it's actually closed-source software that brings them the profits.
I bet github is used as much or more for proprietary corporate development as it is used for open source development. This is the right choice for paying customers.
I know several small, medium, large companies paying github to keep their repos private. Also, github offers on-premises installation of their product.
The hosting of open source code on GitHub is not some completely selfless act on their part. GitHub's value proposition to commercial users is in part contributed to by the fact it is used by a lot of open source projects and for solo or hobby projects, thus breeding familiarity with the platform.
reply