You are making it sound like a “non-profit” is a magical solution to running a service. All it does it adding some tax regulations and making it difficult for non-worker owners to extract rent profits. Most “non-profits” are controlled by a few people that thus can decide their own salaries and make a profit any ways.
And there is no such thing as a “free” service. Someone needs to pay for the infrastructure and operating costs one way or the other. It is just a question of how direct that payment is and if it is affordable by poorer people.
We are hosting 42010 repositories, created and maintained by 34042 users. Compared to one month ago, this is an organic growth rate of +3372 repositories (+8.7% month-over-month) and +2271 users (+7.1%).
You are making it sound like a “non-profit” is a magical solution to running a service. All it does it adding some tax regulations and making it difficult for non-worker owners to extract rent profits. Most “non-profits” are controlled by a few people that thus can decide their own salaries and make a profit any ways.
And there is no such thing as a “free” service. Someone needs to pay for the infrastructure and operating costs one way or the other. It is just a question of how direct that payment is and if it is affordable by poorer people.
We have Codeberg. So there is no need in recommending sourcehut if the priority is promoting democratic services.
Codeberg is nice overall, but I fear centralizing on them is a really bad idea (and there are signs of that happening already).
What are the signs? Gitea federation is being worked on. The Gitea fork is needed to address the Gitea for-profit issue.
https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-hackathon-translation-service-more.html
I hope Gitea federation will reduce this trend, but for now this centralisation is not good at all.
An issue I see is that public instances are not properly announced/listed.
and for sourcehut, i could not find anything.