

GitHaven, an open source clone of GitHub - icefox
https://github.com/icefox/GitHaven/

======
augustl
I'd just like to add that since Git supports SSH, it's pretty easy to set up
git repos on any server. `cd ~; mkdir myrepo.git; cd myrepo.git; git init
--bare`. Then you can just `git push username@server.com:myrepo.git`.

This of course doesn't give you a web UI for creating repositories. And
everyone with access to `username` on the server can access all the
repositories.

~~~
gks
Since Bitbucket now supports Git I'd say that's a better option for anyone
that just wants to keep their repos somewhere.

Either way is great, but Bitbucket makes it easier for sharing if that's
needed.

------
ByteMuse
GitHaven.com is down for me. I would be a lot more interested if a demo was
up; I have been looking for something like this project.

~~~
icefox
<http://git.meyerhome.net:8080/> is my little arm box that is running it that
you can at least check it out (warning: it is just a low end arm dev board, it
probably will go down). I let GitHaven.com elapse when I realized I wouldn't
be able to continue working on the project.

Edit: fyi GitHaven supports private repos which are the majority of the repos
on my home server which you can't see (sorry!). The others were more tests or
repos that are too huge (above the 300MB limit) to put on GitHub.com

~~~
rgbrgb
Thanks for posting that. I definitely like the look of Gitlab a lot better.

------
DanielRibeiro
Interesting. Yesterday this other one (Gitlab) showed up on HN as well:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3114447>

------
Zolomon
Seems like it's lacking in activity, nothing has happened for a year.

~~~
icefox
My work legal department decided it was a conflict of interest (we use Git)
and forbid me from working on it anymore.* So I open sourced it in the hopes
that others besides just me (I run it at home) could find some value and maybe
they would fork it and continue on with it.

* Ironically GitHaven's original goal was a solution that could be installed inside corporate firewalls, but without the cost of GitHub:Fi.

~~~
scg
> My work legal department decided it was a conflict of interest (we use Git)
> and forbid me from working on it anymore.

Can you expand on this? It sounds so incredibly stupid that I'm not sure I got
it right.

~~~
icefox
I started to get involved with the Git Servers at work (Not the primary admins
or anything, just helping them not make the wrong choices
<cough>gitorious</cough>). After that legal said if I do any GitHaven stuff on
my own time from then on they would own it.

~~~
32321215
scg is right, this is indeed incredibly stupid. How can they own something you
make in your spare time.

~~~
chr15
This is common in almost every mid to large size corporation in the US with a
legal department. If you're working on a side project, it might be best to
clear it up with your employer and make sure it's not a conflict of interest.

It's mainly an issue of copyright. The company wants to make sure it owns the
IP to every line of code you write. For example, if you do some work on the
weekend they want to make sure they own the copyright to that.

Every company I've worked for had a clause in my hiring contracts. Some will
enforce it more than others.

Here's some in depth discussion:
[http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-
working-...](http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-at-a-
company-do-they-have-intellectual-property-rights-to-the-st)

~~~
32321215
What is shocking to me is that if I were working in say the automobile
industry and I make a highly customized bike, these kind of clause would mean
that my employer owns all of that.

Some may argue since I have paid for the components and not the company that
would save me, but to be fair the programmer paid for his/her laptop/desktop,
servers (if any), maybe even some programming tools. Does having most of the
stuff to make a side project come for free make me eligible for giving up my
IP to my employer? This is just insane.

------
iFire
AGPL means I can't use this.

~~~
izak30
That's usually my first reaction to the AGPL -- Because most open source
projects I try to file away as "This might be useful for XYZ client, or in a
project that does UUU"

I'm not sure that this fits in that criteria, I could imagine installing this
on a server, unmodified, and just for internal use. You're not breaking the
license from my understanding, and you got some use without selling or
modifying it.

This seems like the only time that I'm interested in something that's AGPL. I
get most frustrated when things like libraries or widgets are marked as AGPL.

~~~
iFire
If I write a git pre-commit script for my repo in githaven, is that forced to
be agpl?

I'm using githaven and yes.

If I want Geckoboard to show a chart of how many githaven commit per day I
did, do I need to agpl geckoboard.com?

I don't know.

I'm not a lawyer. This is my interpretation and I would like comments.

<gnu.org> In AGPLv3, what counts as “interacting with [the software] remotely
through a computer network?”

<gnu.org> If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and
send responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples
of programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers,
interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played
online.

~~~
iFire
AGPL only grants an exception to GPL code. Not the unlicensed and presumed to
be owned by the person who wrote it code.

