Yes, I know this phrase is not very creative and is also used very often. But nevertheless it tells the truth, even though it is a shortened phrase. Github was bought by Microsoft in 2018. Even before there were many thoughts about another centralized service being in usage from enough people and projects being engaged in the context of free software.

Which means: A company with a catalogue consisting just out of proprietary products and services has even access to the most crucial part of free software, the source-code itself. And even though many projects doesn't even share those concerns: ScummVM and Audacity are just some examples. What about free services? And by the wording "free" I don't think of "free accounts" with the option to pay money for having exclusive features, I'm thinking of services hosted by a community itself for having access to the code of free software without those tactics and payoffs on Github. Some examples:

• NotABug.org

• LibreGit

• Codeberg

Or even better: Every project could host their own repository and service. Many have an own website with services included, so where is the pain?
Stop playing literally "bullshit" with using those centralized services as "we" (the complete community being in use of "free software") just loosing in the end when trusting them. Or should we wait until Microsoft with its subsidiary Github play really bad? Remember: We are talking about Microsoft and they just play another round of Embrace, extend, and extinguish. The question is: When do "we" recognize this? And please: Gitlab is not really another option, that's just another centralized service and the software-package for an individual installation was removed with a concrete reason from the repositories of Hyperbola using node.js as dependency - another topic regarding not every software being released under free licensing is already good for privacy. Free for discussion, free for thoughts as there are already good projects for own hosting out there.

What about Gogs? Is that any good? Librecmc uses that.

Which means: A company with a catalogue consisting just out of proprietary products and services has even access to the most crucial part of free software, the source-code itself. And even though many projects doesn't even share those concerns: ScummVM and Audacity are just some examples. What about free services? And by the wording "free" I don't think of "free accounts" with the option to pay money for having exclusive features, I'm thinking of services hosted by a community itself for having access to the code of free software without those tactics and payoffs on Github. Some examples:

• NotABug.org

• LibreGit

• Codeberg

Or even better: Every project could host their own repository and service. Many have an own website with services included, so where is the pain?
Stop playing literally "bullshit" with using those centralized services as "we" (the complete community being in use of "free software") just loosing in the end when trusting them. Or should we wait until Microsoft with its subsidiary Github play really bad? Remember: We are talking about Microsoft and they just play another round of Embrace, extend, and extinguish. The question is: When do "we" recognize this? And please: Gitlab is not really another option, that's just another centralized service and the software-package for an individual installation was removed with a concrete reason from the repositories of Hyperbola using node.js as dependency - another topic regarding not every software being released under free licensing is already good for privacy. Free for discussion, free for thoughts as there are already good projects for own hosting out there.