(Edit: Now that I have slept over it, I realize I might have been a bit too hasty critiquing GitHub. I tested cloning those repositories again, and it appears I might have made a typo in the repository name when GitHub asked me to login. It could be that GitHub interprets a non-existing repository in the query as a private repository. My bad. Really sorry about that, but other than the GitHub part, my post still stands.)
So, have you noticed lately that GitHub is suddenly very interested in who you are? Just trying to clone a repository, minding your own business, and there it is — a prompt demanding that you log in. No thanks, Microsoft. This is supposed to be Free and Open Source Software, and here I am, blocked by what I can only call a virtual doorman. GitHub has quietly turned what used to be a simple task into a hassle, as if open source now means “open, but only if you have your papers in order.”
For folks who don’t want to hand over their credentials to Microsoft (I mean, call me cautious), these barriers feel like a strange and somewhat disturbing twist. What’s the message here? Free Software that isn’t really free? Public repositories that aren’t so public? What gives?
The Ever-Closing Circle Around Free Software
Lately, it feels like the walls are closing in for Free and Open Source Software. Big Tech — GitHub, Apple, Google, the Linux Foundation, and now EA — are all rolling out policies that seem a little... anti-FOSS, shall we say?
GitHub: What once was a beacon of open sharing is now making you jump through hoops to access what’s supposed to be public code. The whole “open platform” idea is starting to feel more like an exclusive club.
Apple and Google: These guys lure developers into their walled gardens, then quietly install the guard dogs. Apple’s all about banning unsigned apps from being installed on their devices (even though you own them), and Google’s not far behind. At this rate, they’ll be patenting the phrase “You didn’t see anything!”
The Linux Foundation and Politics: Then there’s the recent ban of all Russian developers, courtesy of the Linux Foundation itself. Whether or not developers support their government’s actions doesn’t matter; they’re out. FOSS, apparently, now comes with borders.
EA’s Newest Anti-Cheat Twist: EA recently dropped the hammer on Linux users who play Apex Legends (including Steam Deck users running Linux). Their reason? Cheaters. Apparently, Linux’s open nature makes it too tough to handle, so rather than figuring it out, they’ve taken the simpler route: no Linux allowed. You can still play Apex on a Steam Deck, of course — if you’re willing to turn it into a Windows machine.
All of this feels like a slow creep toward the corporatization of open source, like watching someone bolt the exit doors one by one. It’s as if open-source users are being shuffled toward “approved” platforms or, better yet, branded devices that will happily funnel data back to the parent corporation.
The Russian Developer Exclusion and the Linux Foundation’s Role
And just when you thought the anti-Linux crackdown was bad enough, let’s revisit that decision by the Linux Foundation itself to ban all Russian developers from contributing to the Linux kernel. They’re out, regardless of individual beliefs or contributions. Free Software is supposed to transcend borders, but apparently, not anymore. This decision — one that goes against the Foundation’s own mission — tosses out the principles of inclusivity like last week’s leftovers.
The FOSS movement was always about universal access to code. Cutting off contributors based on nationality is an arbitrary line in the sand that feels like it betrays the spirit of Free Software. It’s not as though kicking out individual developers is going to turn the geopolitical tide, and it’s sure not going to improve the Linux kernel.
The Four Freedoms of Free Software... Sort Of?
Remember the Four Freedoms? The bedrock of Free Software? With each restriction, they feel more like guidelines than actual rights. Here’s a little refresher on what they are (and what they used to mean):
The Freedom to Use: Anyone can run the software — unless, of course, they’re not allowed access in the first place.
The Freedom to Study: Users should be able to access the source code and understand it. But now, not without the secret handshake.
The Freedom to Share: Sharing is encouraged — that is, if you’ve logged in and proven you’re trustworthy.
The Freedom to Improve: Ah, the dream of universal contribution. Except, well, some folks need not apply.
Every time a gate goes up, it’s a piece chipped off of these freedoms. If Free Software’s barriers keep piling up, “freedom” starts to look a bit more like a catchphrase than a practice.
Some Final Thoughts, or Maybe Just a Midnight Rant
So here we are. Is this really where FOSS is heading? Wasn’t Free Software meant to be a global movement, not a members-only club? With login demands, access blocks, and now even platform-based restrictions on gaming, it’s like the very concept of “free” is being slowly redefined.
And look, this isn’t just about a couple of hurdles when cloning a repository or playing a game. It’s about whether Free Software will actually remain free — or if we’ll look back one day and realize it’s been quietly walled off, bit by bit. If Free Software is going to survive, we’re going to need a good, old-fashioned rebellion. Or at the very least, a reminder to Big Tech that “open” doesn’t mean “open if we say so.”
Alright, that’s my late-night rant. Good night, everyone.
(Sorry for the lack of photos, though. I didn't have it in me to start digging up and editing older photos, and I sure enough didn't want to start shooting photos at 2:40 in the morning.)
Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!
Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).
You may also include @stemsocial as a beneficiary of the rewards of this post to get a stronger support.