[Python-Dev] PEP 481 - Migrate Some Supporting Repositories to Git and Github

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> I don't get a vote. So I'm glad there are some within the Python core
> development team that can see the mistakes inherent in depending on
> non-free tools for developing free software.

While this is a laudable view, this kind of extreme stance is contrary
to any semblance of practicality. Compare:

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#Debian

Debian is not considered sufficiently free because "people can readily
learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package
database", even though you have to be very much explicit about these
things (you have to go and enable the non-free repos).

Yes, GitHub is proprietary. But all of your actual code is stored in
git, which is free, and it's easy to push that to a new host somewhere
else, or create your own host. This proposal is for repositories that
don't need much in the way of issue trackers etc, so shifting away
from GitHub shouldn't demand anything beyond moving the repos
themselves. How bad is it, really? Is it worth fighting a
philosophical battle for the sake of no real gain, sacrificing real
benefits for the intangible "but it's not free" debate?

Python is already using quite a bit of non-free software in its
ecosystem. The Windows builds of CPython are made with Microsoft's
compiler, and the recent discussion about shifting to Cygwin or MinGW
basically boiled down to "but it ought to be free software", and that
was considered not a sufficiently strong argument. In each case, the
decision has impact on other people (using MSVC for the official
python.org installers means extension writers need to use MSVC too;
and using GitHub means that contributors are strongly encouraged,
possibly required, to use GitHub); so why is it acceptable to use a
non-free compiler, but not acceptable to use a non-free host?

I admire and respect the people who, for their own personal use,
absolutely and utterly refuse to use any non-free systems or software.
It's great that they do it, because that helps encourage free software
to be created. But for myself? I'll use whatever makes the most sense.
Proprietary systems have inherent issues (the best-maintained non-free
programs seem to have about the same bugginess as a poorly-maintained
free program, or at least that's how it feels), but if the available
free alternatives have even more issues, I'll not hobble myself for
the purity of freedom. Practicality wins.

ChrisA