--- title: What's Wrong with GitHub | daily.dev description: A GNU Project essay by Jacob Bachmeyer and Richard Stallman argues developers should avoid hosting repositories on GitHub, citing four main harms: confusing... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/what-s-wrong-with-github-d9tpnmdyq twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: What's Wrong with GitHub | daily.dev og:description: A GNU Project essay by Jacob Bachmeyer and Richard Stallman argues developers should avoid hosting repositories on GitHub, citing four main harms: confusing... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/what-s-wrong-with-github-d9tpnmdyq og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/d9tPnMdyQ.png og:image:alt: What's Wrong with GitHub og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 630 og:locale: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # What's Wrong with GitHub **[Lobsters](https://daily.dev/sources/lobsters)** · 13 min read · 0 upvotes · 0 comments ## Summary A GNU Project essay by Jacob Bachmeyer and Richard Stallman argues developers should avoid hosting repositories on GitHub, citing four main harms: confusing licensing guidance on the Choose a License site, reliance on nonfree JavaScript that breaks the site for users who avoid it, GitHub Copilot and its CLI telemetry being examples of SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute), and GitHub's efforts to centralize Git's inherently distributed architecture via forks, pull requests tied exclusively to GitHub, achievements/gamification, GitHub Actions' backdoor-like auto-update mechanism, and the absence of mailing lists or visible email addresses. The piece recommends self-hosting, publishing contact emails, and using the free 'act' tool to run GitHub Actions locally without depending on GitHub's infrastructure. ## Full article daily.dev links to this article rather than hosting it. Read it at the original source: ## Questions this post answers ### What changed with GitHub Copilot's billing model in 2026? GitHub announced that all Copilot subscriptions would be forced to move to a token-based billing model charging for actual computing resources used, replacing the earlier system of basic features plus a monthly allotment of premium requests. Because Copilot operates as SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute) running on GitHub's remote servers, GitHub was able to impose this pricing change unilaterally. _Anyone budgeting for AI coding tools should track pricing shifts like Copilot's token-based billing on daily.dev before costs spike unexpectedly._ ### How can I run GitHub Actions workflows locally without depending on GitHub's servers? The free tool 'act', published at nektosact.com, runs GitHub Actions workflows locally on demand without depending on GitHub's dispatch infrastructure. This matters because the standard GitHub Actions runner, despite being free software, depends on SaaSS infrastructure controlled by GitHub and refuses to dispatch actions to runners it considers out of date. _Teams wary of CI/CD lock-in can follow discussions on alternatives like act via daily.dev._ ### Why does GitHub refuse to show email addresses in commits and pull requests? GitHub's web UI never displays raw email addresses; if a commit's email matches a GitHub account, it links to that account, and otherwise shows only an unlinked name. This departs from Git's original design, which used email addresses as a distributed, Internet-spanning identity system modeled on how Linux kernel development uses mailing lists, and instead pushes users toward creating GitHub accounts to participate. _Maintainers weighing forge lock-in versus open collaboration can compare platform tradeoffs on daily.dev._ ## Community take How the wider developer community reacted, aggregated from 2 discussions and 29 comments across lobsters, hackernews (as of 2026-10-11). **TL;DR:** Discussion is split between agreeing GitHub has real problems (Microsoft ownership, nonfree JS, centralization) and finding the essay's framing pedantic, outdated, or hypocritical given the FSF's own tooling gaps. **Sentiment:** 10% positive · 45% mixed · 45% skeptical **The case for** - Some agree avoiding nonfree JavaScript and GitHub's centralizing tendencies is a reasonable stance for publishers, even if not for consumers. - Several note genuine dissatisfaction with GitHub's quality decline and Microsoft's influence, pushing them toward alternatives like Codeberg. **The pushback** - Many argue the GNU project's own ethical criteria are inconsistent/nitpicky, since Codeberg scores poorly largely over a labeling technicality despite being well-aligned with free software values. - Several call the JavaScript argument pedantic or impractical given how embedded nonfree software is in everyday life (e.g. apps required for public services). - Some feel the piece reads more like criticism of the FSF's irrelevance than a coherent case against GitHub, and note it lacks recommended practical alternatives. - One commenter points out the list of alternatives in the piece is outdated, omitting Codeberg, Heptapod, and non-Git systems. **By community** - lobsters (mixed): Commenters debate whether the FSF's ethical criteria are fair or nitpicky, while broadly agreeing GitHub/Microsoft concerns are legitimate but the essay's purism is impractical. - hackernews (skeptical): The few replies mock the essay's phrasing and connect criticism to Microsoft's ownership and potential embrace-extend-extinguish behavior. **Hottest debate:** Whether GNU's ethical repository criteria (which fail Codeberg but pass Sourcehut) are principled or just inconsistent nitpicking. **Open questions** - What practical alternative should people use when nonfree software (apps, JS) is unavoidable in daily life? - Why doesn't GNU itself produce new forge software that better aligns with its stated values? **Highlights** > The GNU project has published [ethical repository criteria](https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html) and evaluated common forges on them. The only forge (besides their own Savannah) that scores "good enough to recommend" on them is Sourcehut. For anyone wondering Codeberg.org would score F, just like GitHub. One reason is that it requires JS, and while Codeberg's JS code is free software it isn't labeled in the GNU approved way. I am disappointed that the GNU project tells everyone how wrong they are but seems unable to create new software that aligns with their values and vision. > — [pyfisch on lobsters · 14 points, 2 comments](https://lobste.rs/s/u9ue6c/what_s_wrong_with_github#c_wgsxs9) > Yeah, I somehow wound up on the mailing list for that project, and the discussions around Codeberg are just a dumpster fire. (And IIRC, the "improperly labeled" javascript isn't even used for a critical function!) The funny thing about all of that is that Codeberg is probably even better aligned overall with GNU mission than sourcehut. Sourcehut allows private, non-free repositories, where Codeberg does not. The fact that they can't recommend codeberg.org because of these criteria is a sign (to me) that the criteria need to be fixed. I don't recall whether there was more than just the javascript labeling, but if there was, it was similarly nitpicky. Things like wordsmithing just how they recommended a particular license, etc. I do believed someone suggested a perfectly reasonable way to address this in the recommendation (along the lines of saying to potential users "we know the javascript is free, so you can approve it in librejs") but no consensus could be developed. It's sad to watch one project pick at another project that's so neatly aligned. > — [hoistbypetard on lobsters · 2 points, 1 comments](https://lobste.rs/s/u9ue6c/what_s_wrong_with_github#c_myjvau) > Per the "Extensive Use of Nonfree JavaScript" bit, avoiding "nonfree" software is getting more challenging in life beyond coding. It's getting harder to feel it's "wrong" when I see it in more places. For example, [my town is amazing and set up free, underground composting bins all over parks and neighborhoods](https://www.westhartfordct.gov/town-departments/public-works/collections-recycling/food-scraps-drop-off-program) and stuff. However, random people used them as trash cans if left unlocked. So they set up a program where you register with the town online and then can open the bins via bluetooth and smartphone app. But only a smartphone app. The only way to participate is to use a proprietary, nonfree app. So when I read things like > users who refuse the JavaScript Trap find that any interaction beyond simply viewing repositories is impossible in this article, I wonder what the general solution is. "Avoid Github" means not using it even though friends and colleagues are there. "Avoid $SMARTPHONE_APP" means not participating in my community's environmental efforts. Neither of these seem "right", even though free software seems "right". Beating the drum of avoiding nonfree software seems like it's gotten less effective as software shows up more in real life. I would get more out of articles like this if they came with recommended alternatives. Not just "Use Source Hut or Codeberg" or whatever, but alternatives meaning how to participate differently within a societal mesh that otherwise doesn't think about software freedom when locking compost bins. > — [ryan-duve on lobsters · 7 points, 3 comments](https://lobste.rs/s/u9ue6c/what_s_wrong_with_github#c_6au3bg) > I think it's instructive in this case to imagine how much better your life would be if all of GitHub's client-side JS was unminified and GPL. The answer, of course, is "not at all". So, I wouldn't stress too much about the second-order effects of avoiding it on that basis alone. > — [thombles on lobsters · 7 points, 1 comments](https://lobste.rs/s/u9ue6c/what_s_wrong_with_github#c_cmlbwc) **Source threads** - [lobsters](https://lobste.rs/s/u9ue6c/what_s_wrong_with_github) · 33 points · 23 comments - [hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50041739) · 6 points · 6 comments ## Similar posts on daily.dev - [Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives](https://daily.dev/posts/why-developers-are-ditching-github-for-codeberg-and-self-hosting-alternatives-0ah7apnuh) · Hacker News · 163 upvotes · 37 comments - [How Github monopoly is destroying the open source ecosystem](https://daily.dev/posts/how-github-monopoly-is-destroying-the-open-source-ecosystem-nnomexw2o) · Lobsters · 13 upvotes · 1 comments - [Before GitHub](https://daily.dev/posts/before-github-jjxtuvtbh) · Armin Ronacher · 95 upvotes · 5 comments --- Tags: [#github](https://daily.dev/tags/github), [#git](https://daily.dev/tags/git), [#github-actions](https://daily.dev/tags/github-actions) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/what-s-wrong-with-github-d9tpnmdyq) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/dailydotdev","https://github.com/dailydotdev","https://www.linkedin.com/company/daily-dev-ltd"]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://daily.dev/#website","url":"https://daily.dev","name":"daily.dev","publisher":{"@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization"},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://daily.dev/search?q={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"What's Wrong with GitHub","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/what-s-wrong-with-github-d9tpnmdyq","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/what-s-wrong-with-github-d9tpnmdyq"},"datePublished":"2026-10-11T13:02:55.156Z","dateModified":"2026-10-11T17:34:56.074Z","description":"A GNU Project essay by Jacob Bachmeyer and Richard Stallman argues developers should avoid hosting repositories on GitHub, citing four main harms: confusing...","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--0_ODbtD2--/f_auto/v1722860399/public/Placeholder%2008","thumbnailUrl":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--0_ODbtD2--/f_auto/v1722860399/public/Placeholder%2008","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Lobsters","inLanguage":"en","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180}},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Lobsters","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--tl8v_Fku--/f_auto,t_logo/v1698841318/logos/lobste.jpg","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/lobsters"},"commentCount":0,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/what-s-wrong-with-github-d9tpnmdyq","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":0},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":0}],"keywords":"github,git,github-actions","timeRequired":"PT13M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lobsters","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/lobsters"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"What's Wrong with GitHub"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/what-s-wrong-with-github-d9tpnmdyq#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What changed with GitHub Copilot's billing model in 2026?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"GitHub announced that all Copilot subscriptions would be forced to move to a token-based billing model charging for actual computing resources used, replacing the earlier system of basic features plus a monthly allotment of premium requests. Because Copilot operates as SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute) running on GitHub's remote servers, GitHub was able to impose this pricing change unilaterally. Anyone budgeting for AI coding tools should track pricing shifts like Copilot's token-based billing on daily.dev before costs spike unexpectedly."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How can I run GitHub Actions workflows locally without depending on GitHub's servers?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The free tool 'act', published at nektosact.com, runs GitHub Actions workflows locally on demand without depending on GitHub's dispatch infrastructure. This matters because the standard GitHub Actions runner, despite being free software, depends on SaaSS infrastructure controlled by GitHub and refuses to dispatch actions to runners it considers out of date. Teams wary of CI/CD lock-in can follow discussions on alternatives like act via daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why does GitHub refuse to show email addresses in commits and pull requests?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"GitHub's web UI never displays raw email addresses; if a commit's email matches a GitHub account, it links to that account, and otherwise shows only an unlinked name. This departs from Git's original design, which used email addresses as a distributed, Internet-spanning identity system modeled on how Linux kernel development uses mailing lists, and instead pushes users toward creating GitHub accounts to participate. Maintainers weighing forge lock-in versus open collaboration can compare platform tradeoffs on daily.dev."}}]} ```