Thinking about Github. Git itself is pretty decentralized as a thing. But Github has become a centralized clearinghouse of this protocol.

If Github suddenly decided tomorrow "we are evil and do evil things," everyone could still fork (probably). This isn't true with things like Facebook and Twitter. If you go to another platform, they hold the thing you want to fork, your identity.

Therefore, the right to fork should be thought of as a fundamental right in decentralization and federation.

@citizenphnix also note that not everything on github can be easily migrated over - things like issues, milestones, in-progress PRs would have to be re-created

this question comes up in the rust community at tiems

@QuietMisdreavus Yeah, it's easy to forget that part as well. For a lot of people it's a defacto portfolio/resume, similar to LinkedIn. It goes back to the idea of holding your identity as the thing of value.

@citizenphnix In terms of GIT (and not only...) I would call this "the right to clone". Because e.g. in a case of Facebook you would actually need to create a clone (copy + change some facebook URIs...) in the alternative system of all data that you believe is a part of your identity. Plus maybe create a link "is a clone of" to the cloned identity

@yvolk @citizenphnix

All forks are clones of the original at the moment of forking.

The term "clone" only makes sense if the intention is to manage one's own instance yet still subsequently follow the developments/updates of the origin.

If, however, the perspective involves new, separate/unrelated features for the new instance, and subsequent independent updates, then the term "fork" is more correct.

@LeeteqXV Your explanation means that the term clone is more general than fork.
Moreover the most important part of initial wish of @citizenphnix is actually cloning, i.e. creation of person's own copy of their original data, previously locked in some others storage (e.g. in Facebook). The clone owner may decide, what to do with that clone: maybe having that clone will be enough for a person to feel safe.


Yes, if the only concern is to get copies of the data, but from an #ITstrategy #perspective, "cloning" vs. #forking poses a #dilemma:

Developers are inspired by the excitement of #innovation.

Would a "clone variant" get enough traction and #developerinterest to ensure that future updates will get the necessary #maintenance and #qualityControl for you to continue relying on the clone?

If at a later stage, the "clone version" is not being maintained sufficiently anymore as is typical for many #openSource projects (the INTENTION to maintain may still be there, but suddenly the project halts for many months pending available volunteer developer time even just to fix a small showstopper bug...), then you are stuck with all your recent data in a useless variant which most likely is impossible to get back into the original version / #community later, should you want to switch back...


Sign in to participate in the conversation

Generalistic and moderated instance. All opinions are welcome, but hate speeches are prohibited. Users who don't respect rules will be silenced or suspended, depending on the violation severity.