> But that is different from logging into Github and having a fork of my repo.
How is it really different? When you push it back up to github it is exactly as if you'd have forked it. The only difference is that it isn't marked as a fork and in this respect not shown when you look at the original repo graph.
It's nice that it works for your usecase, but since it's not a real protection against anything and only looks like a safety measure against abondend accounts that still have a copy of your code, it shouldn't be a feature that's on by default. (Imho)
> I think GitHub should really have a way for users of your repository to somehow illustrate that they're using your project
I kind of use forking that way (although more when I like a project, it's not necessarily a promise that I'm using it anywhere). This ensures that I have a copy of the project in the state that I originally liked. Then if the project is either (a) taken in a disagreeable direction or (b) deleted, I still have my local copy. I can also always update from upstream if future development occurs that I want to benefit from.
That said, I don't fork all the open source packages I use, although maybe I should.
> No, thankfully! I've been working with GitHub via PRs. They added the feature most needed so far, proper process-level sandboxing, so hopefully a fork won't be necessary.
Do you have a link to the issue where this was fixed/discussed? I searched for it last week and couldn't find it.
It's a sad situation that if you desire exposure and community building you must maintain a fork on Github, but that's how it is for smaller projects. I am in a similar situation, with some of my projects with main repos hosted on sourcehut, but most of external engagement comes from clones on github. It is what it is, and we do what we must. :)
> Honestly, it felt kind of shitty to delete the repository and unpin the project from my profile.
It is kind of shitty to do that. Why not just archive the repo and add a note to the README that you've turned it into non-free software? At least that way you don't break the main link to the project or remove all the content from the issue tracker. This is a project that other people have contributed work to, so it's rude to just destroy that.
> That makes perfect sense to me; the fork ON github is what lends the fork legitimacy versus "some dude found code."
No, he made two points. The first one is that this way you don't have your code in random freelancer's accounts, which I'm saying is wrong: a freelancer can take his code, and upload it back to his account.
So if this mechanism makes sense to you as a way of guaranteeing that your code won't be in other people's accounts, you're mistaken too.
In fact if you don't believe me give me access to your private repos and lets see what happens.
> You can add PRs and requests in Github or contact the devs on Twitter or wherever. You can fork it and make whatever changes you like.
So I don't have to do these things. If I can have someone capable solve the hard problems for us then I can focus the company on tasks it's better suited at delivering on.
> To the extent that it is that straightforward, the correct takeaway is that you do not have permission to include someone else's GPLed code in your Github repository
Or to put that differently;
Using GitHub’s built-in “Fork” feature is probably often a violation of GitHub’s terms of use.
> I am most curious about the "no technical interview" part and "my work speaks for my skills" while OP's GitHub is just forks.
On Github you have to fork a project first if you want to create a pull request. I randomly opened three of the forks and saw that he'd made pull requests for two of them.
> You're relying on people not making their forks out of github.
I'm not. Did you read my 3rd paragraph?
This is not a security strategy, it is a strategy for managing relationships--which is the purpose of using Github in the first place. There are far more secure ways to manage a git repo than Github, if that is the goal.
You don't have a github account?
reply