GitHub alternatives that aren’t fucked - aka Should Null make his own GitHub alternative

[Sidon's fleshlight]

With the recent bullying from Nintendo that resulted in the loss of two Nintendo Switch emulators, should there be (or are there) any GitHub alternatives that don’t follow DMCA requests? Talking in terms of both ignoring DMCA requests and having anonymized accounts similar in vein to something like Proton Mail or Signal, if that makes any sense.

 

[Ibanez RG 350EX]

aka Should Null make his own GitHub alternative

Talking in terms of both ignoring DMCA requests

"Hey guys, wouldn't it be cool if Null tempted major corporations to sue him for copyright infringement?"

 

[Trump's Chosen]

gitgud.io?

 

[The Ugly One]

just use torrents like we did in the old days, take five days to download a 2 MB game from 1994 because there's only 1 seeder in the whole world.

 

[HahaYes]

Seconding GitGud.io/GitLab, you can also self host your own instance of GitLab if that's something you're wanting to look into

 

[Hamsteroid]

>Should Null make his own GitHub alternative
At this point Null should just make his own lower case i internet: Kiwi-Kontrolled Klearnet /sneed

He used to host a Gitea instance, but it seems to be dead for a while now (see this thread)

 

[KMFDM Sucks]

Seconding gitgud.io. Seeding a repository over IPFS is also an option since they have first-class git support in the IPFS tools.

 

[Owlbear]

Self-hosted gitlab is pretty nice.

 

[byron]

don’t follow DMCA requests

One thing that's really fascinating to me is that, I'm not aware of any website that actually follows the DMCA - what I mean is, follow the law as it's actually written.

What the law actually says is the following:
(1) a copyright holder (Disney, for example) sends a DMCA notification to a publisher (Youtube, for example).
(2) the publisher is supposed to forward the notification to a content creator.
(3) the content creator is then (by the letter of the law) allowed to deny the request by stating, "this content is protected under 'fair use'"
(4) if the content creator does that, then the publisher is allowed to leave the content in place.
(5) the copyright holder is then supposed to initiate a lawsuit against the creator. The publisher is not a party to the lawsuit. The publisher is protected by having followed the DMCA.
(6) the question of fair use is then decided in a court of law. If the court finds that the material violates copyright, the publisher takes it down.

That's ...not a bad process actually. But as far as I can tell, the way it actually works in the real world is:
(1) Disney tells Youtube to take a video down (or to leave it up but given Disney the ad revenue)
(2) Youtube does what they're told