Pretty weird/uncomfortable that Github is even talking/thinking about taking projects away from their owners, whether they are “responsive” or not.
Why wouldn’t some concerned 3rd party just fork it if they felt like taking over maintainership?
Agreed on both counts. Just fork it. If you can’t maintain enough community or dev time to support your fork, you’re not doing open source, you’re doing free-riding; and frankly, suck it.
Just based on a cursory reading, it feels to me like GH are thinking of maintaining the project name + URLs but “take stewardship” in the meantime. The authors copyright should not be infringed. But who knows.
When some OSS author goes to prison or gets COVID or is just sick of how people word their bug reports and pulls a _why it’s time to stop reaping and start sewing.
Pretty weird/uncomfortable that Github is even talking/thinking about taking projects away from their owners, whether they are “responsive” or not.
Why wouldn’t some concerned 3rd party just fork it if they felt like taking over maintainership?
Agreed on both counts. Just fork it. If you can’t maintain enough community or dev time to support your fork, you’re not doing open source, you’re doing free-riding; and frankly, suck it.
Yeah, GitHub’s behavior here feels like they’re implicitly rewarding free-riders by even giving time to their complaints.
IOW, using OSS code is a risk. Sometimes it doesn’t pan out in your favor. That’s life. Build in margin to deal with it.
Just based on a cursory reading, it feels to me like GH are thinking of maintaining the project name + URLs but “take stewardship” in the meantime. The authors copyright should not be infringed. But who knows.
When some OSS author goes to prison or gets COVID or is just sick of how people word their bug reports and pulls a
_whyit’s time to stop reaping and start sewing.Sowing?
Presumably sewing face masks ;)