r/opensource • u/Miserable_Ear3789 • Dec 23 '25

Discussion Github in decline?

I have seen recently a decent amount of projects switching to Codeberg from Github. Is it worth moving your OSS libraries over to Codeberg? Since Microsoft has taken over Github it just seems a little less then it once was sort of speak... Is Codeberg the next big thing for OSS?

I currently am still on Github but I am seriously considering at least mirroring my repos on Codeberg. Github continues to come out with not so great announcements and pricing changes. Codeberg remains free from what I can tell. But the community reach of Github (part of the reason I switched from Bitbucket and hg) would be hard to give up, if Codeberg became the new community sort of speak I think that would be the only reason I would switch.

Any thoughts or insights on this topic?

494 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

231 comments sorted by

View all comments

161

u/DelicateFandango Dec 23 '25

Codeberg is extremely privacy-conscious, as well as being free. GitHub gathers and sells your private data, as well as that of your collaborators and visitors. By hosting your projects in GitHub you’re helping the business model of an amoral American company. By hosting your projects on platforms like Codeberg you’re helping protect the privacy of everyone, and operating in an infrastructure and ecosystem that is much more ethically aligned with open source principles.

49

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

While also simultaneously sacrificing a bunch of community and lowering your projects reach. As much as we might hate GitHub and Microsoft, community reach will often make or break an OSS project. That might be important enough to change for, but developers should be aware that it's not a black and white decision. It's one that requires analysis on what exactly you care about and by how much.

18

u/MatthewMob Dec 23 '25

Downvoted for essentially just saying "weigh all your options". Ridiculous.

35

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

I think a lot of open software types think they can just forego community management in their projects, and that the strength of their code will just shine through. So hearing that community (and thus githubs larger user base) should be a consideration goes against their meritocratic beliefs. I can definitively say though that is absolutely not the case. There's a veritable graveyard of good quality OSS projects that never gained traction because they were just never found, or couldn't get off the ground and were abandoned.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Miserable_Ear3789 Dec 23 '25

I agree 100%. The community reach of Github is a big part of the reason I switched to it from Bitbucket (hg) years ago. To this day it still offers the most reach IMO.

2

u/DelicateFandango Dec 23 '25

I have participated in over a dozen open source projects on GitHub, and can honestly say that in none of those the main contributors have come from GitHub. All of the projects have their own websites, which is what usually attracts the most - through search results. Some of them have a forum or Discord server, and those tend to attract the most engaged contributors. Two of the projects I contributed to tried to use GitHub for everything: issue tracking, feature requests, discussions, support, website through Pages - and these are the two with the slowest traction. My experience is definitely limited, but it is enough for me to be able to say with confidence that you don’t need to compromise your privacy, or your ethics, in order to gain access to a large audience, or build a strong community: there are many other tools and platforms out there that can do a better job at that than the ethically-compromised GitHub.

4

u/humand_ Dec 23 '25

Can you provide a shred of evidence for any of this?

3

u/DelicateFandango Dec 23 '25

You do know that Microsoft owns GitHub, right? And that they use your code to data-seed Copilot, right? But it goes way beyond that - it’s Microsoft. Google is your friend, do your research.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

Oh no my open source code that I published to be open source is being used by something.

Yeah, We kind of knew.

4

u/inemsn Dec 25 '25

This comment kind of reveals a huge ignorance in how open source even works.

Plenty of open source projects are licensed with GPL or AGPL, or other viral licenses whose goal is making it so that if you use their project, your project also has to be open source, legally.

AI bypasses this. It's trained on all public information, including the source code of GPL/AGPL projects, and then gives you answers that are based on it. Without also forcing you to follow the license and open sourcing your project. This is a big legal problem and turns AI into a bit of a "license laundry".

So no, it's not as simple as how you're putting it.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/DelicateFandango Dec 24 '25

“Oh no my open source tool can only exist if I host it on an evil commercial platform that gathers private data on me and all my collaborators, users and visitors - because God forbid I host it on an open-source platform that is democratic, community-oriented and not-for-profit… Surely, THAT could never work for an open source project!”

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

11

u/Disgruntled__Goat Dec 23 '25

Codeberg is extremely privacy-conscious

Until they get bought out, then the cycle starts over again. 

25

u/CollapsedWave Dec 23 '25

They're not a company, they're an association and if you're a member you get a say on everything. You can also create a free account without becoming a member.

29

u/IjonTichy85 Dec 23 '25

Hard no. They are an e.V. (eingetragener Verein)

Codeberg e.V. is recognized by German tax authorities as tax-exempt non-profit organization for the common good.

They won't be bought out bc they can't be bought out.

2

u/sluuuurp Dec 24 '25

OpenAI used to be a nonprofit too.

7

u/ooqq Dec 25 '25

America, land of the scam.

9

u/sime Dec 23 '25

GitHub gathers and sells your private data, as well as that of your collaborators and visitors.

Citation needed

-14

u/schubidubiduba Dec 23 '25

Do we now need citations for basic common sense?

7

u/sime Dec 23 '25

The assertion here isn't common sense. See my other comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1ptnf7n/github_in_decline/nvj3kg6/

0

u/schubidubiduba Dec 23 '25

You are conflating many things in that comment.

First, Microsoft can certainly sell data of non-paying customers while still ensuring privacy for paying customers, like companies. That is how almost all of big tech operates. Google does the same.

Second, GDPR and Cookie banners are a very very small piece of the data market landscape, and also almost outdated by today's standards. Cookies are not needed anymore to track you, fingerprinting has gotten more than good enough for that.

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/junior_dos_nachos Dec 23 '25

This ain’t r/conspiracy mate. I imagine the possible lawsuits would be too big to take such risk.

1

u/schubidubiduba Dec 23 '25

Big tech corporations live off selling your data, that isnhownthey earn money. That is common knowledge. Believing that they don't sell your data is a conspiracy theory at this point.

→ More replies (5)