Thanks for your comments and insights, Jakob. I just want to shortly assure you that I really liked your emails and your participation. I didn't answer/comment further due lack of time.
Because of recent events (2017-03-01) I want to come back to this part: > Yes, but Google Code was no Github. Github is the singularity of > open source development. (As much as I dislike FB but hear me out...) Sidenote: Before GitHub, sourceforge.net was the singular main hoster for FOSS sourcecode. They lost their status when they bundled the downloads with adware (and malware). Always the same story: Nice little StartUp offers a comfortable, gratis service. Everyone starts using it. Then either the StartUp fails and the service gets shut down, or it gets sold to investors who want to see more profit with every year. Then the terms of service get worse, the prices go up, etc., e.g. see BitKeeper vs. Linux (the reason we have git now). GitHub: On 2017-03-01 GitHub introduced new Terms of Service (which you automatically accept by continueing to use their service) which demands from uploaders to grant GitHub a license. This is legal self-defense for GitHub, not unusual or bad in itself, but they further specifiy this license, which e.g. includes the uploader to waive any and all attribution rights. Basically, when uploading FOSS-licensed content to GitHub, the uploader automatically grants GitHub a special license, so actually a case of dual-licensing. The problem now is, that when the content is copyrighted by other authors beside the uploader, then the uploader cannot (in usual cases) actually grant this license legally to GitHub, as most FOSS-licenses forbid sublicensing and/or removal of the original attributions. Some projects already moved away from GitHub because of this. https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/removing_everything_from_github/ I don't believe GitHub will take big damage because of this, especially as there is no serious contender on the rise. But it's surely a sign that GitHub is not a singularity from the usual development of such things. It's not an idealistic group of nerds anymore, but a big company (e.g. lookup the "github meritocracy" drama). For the other points mentioned by you and others about picolisp: Just do it. PicoLisp is MIT-licensed. Action speaks louder than words. As Lindsay wrote: > What would be great is to see more of an ecosystem built around the > picolisp core. Build something awesome with picolisp, document it and share > it with the world. This! I'm on it. /beneroth
