#git

antonmedv/gitmal : A #static page generator for repos
▻https://github.com/antonmedv/gitmal?tab=readme-ov-file

— Permalink

#git #gitmal #website #repository

#camoleak: Critical #github #copilot Vulnerability Leaks Private Source Code
▻https://www.legitsecurity.com/blog/camoleak-critical-github-copilot-vulnerability-leaks-private-source-c

— Permalink

#dev #generativeai #LLMs #promptinjection #proprietary #sourcecode #leak

« Une idée absolument horrible » : Tony Blair envisagé pour la gouvernance de Gaza après la guerre, un projet déjà critiqué
▻https://www.bfmtv.com/international/moyen-orient/palestine/une-idee-absolument-horrible-tony-blair-envisage-pour-la-gouvernance-de-gaza-

Près de 80 ans après la fin du mandat britannique en Palestine, l’hypothèse Tony Blair renvoie, pour certains, à une crainte d’un retour en arrière et suscite d’importantes interrogations. D’autant que malgré son rôle d’envoyé spécial pour le Moyen-Orient durant huit ans, d’aucuns déploreront son manque d’action.

« Malgré ses terribles échecs en Irak et avec l’Autorité palestinienne, l’ancien Premier ministre britannique continue de pontifier sur les maux et les remèdes du Moyen-Orient », notait dès 2014, l’influent analyste politique Marwan Bishara, pour le New York Times.
Accusé de crimes de guerre en Irak

.../...

Le retour sur le devant de la scène de Tony Blair n’est pas non plus du goût de Francesca Albanese, rapporteure des Nations unies pour la situation des droits humains dans les territoires palestiniens occupés.
Tony Blair ?
Hell no.
Hands off Palestine.

Shall we meet in The Hague perhaps ? (tweet de Francesca Albanese)
▻https://x.com/FranceskAlbs/status/1971747070060241033

#GITA

États-Unis : Donald Trump présente son plan pour Gaza et espère un accord « très très proche »
▻https://www.rfi.fr/fr/moyen-orient/20250929-%C3%A9tats-unis-donald-trump-pr%C3%A9sente-son-plan-pour-gaza-et-esp%C3

https://s.rfi.fr/media/display/cc981460-9d64-11f0-8664-005056bf30b7/w:1280/p:16x9/AP25272668895880.jpg

Le territoire palestinien serait gouverné par une autorité temporaire « technocratique et apolitique », dont le Hamas serait exclu. Elle serait placée sous la supervision d’un « comité de la paix » présidé par Donald Trump lui-même et dans lequel l’ancien Premier ministre britannique Tony Blair jouerait un rôle.

Tony Blair, l’ex-premier ministre britannique prêt à diriger Gaza
Par Cécile Ducourtieux (Londres, correspondante) , Publié le 29 septembre 2025
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/09/29/tony-blair-l-ex-premier-ministre-britannique-pret-a-diriger-gaza_6643334_321

(...) Tony Blair connaît bien la région et le conflit Israélo-palestinien. En juin 2007, peu de temps après avoir quitté Downing Street, il fut nommé envoyé spécial du « Quartet » au Moyen-Orient (Nations-Unies, Etats-Unis, Union Européenne, Russie), chargé de trouver une solution de paix durable entre Israël et les Palestiniens, et d’aider à la réalisation d’une solution à deux Etats. Il restera huit ans à ce poste, sans aboutir à des avancées significatives, mais en ayant tissé un réseau serré de relations. Si les Palestiniens s’étaient félicités, au départ, qu’une personnalité aussi connue défende leurs intérêts, ils lui ont par la suite reproché d’être trop proche des Israéliens, expliquait le Guardian en 2015.
« Il est absolument inacceptable que Tony Blair prenne la tête d’une autorité de transition à Gaza, nous n’avons pas besoin d’un dirigeant venu d’une ex-puissance coloniale », réagissait, vendredi, sur la BBC, Mustafa Barghouti, un vétéran de la politique palestienne, à la suite des révélations sur les ambitions nouvelles du Britannique. « M. Blair a une très mauvaise réputation liée à la guerre en Irak. Et nous ne lui faisons pas confiance : s’il prend le job, il ne travaillera que pour les Israéliens », ajoutait M. Barghouti. De fait, Tony Blair reste une figure très controversée, au Royaume-Uni comme à l’étranger. (...)

En Palestine, les Britanniques ont une responsabilité historique
▻https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/opinion-en-palestine-les-britanniques-ont-une-responsabilite-

La reconnaissance d’un État palestinien, formulée le 21 septembre par le Royaume-Uni, ne suffit pas, affirme l’historien de renom William Dalrymple. Londres a désormais le devoir moral de réparer les erreurs commises dans la région avant la création d’Israël, largement méconnues outre-Manche, et de contribuer activement à la fin de la guerre.

▻https://archive.ph/piGjx

Et je me rappelle qu’il y a quelques deux semaines, je me faisais la réflexion suivante :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1133613#message1134083

Et depuis, je suis tombé sur ça :
▻https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/international/article/gaza-bientot-dirigee-par-tony-blair-ce-que-l-on-sait-de-cette-hypothe

Confirmé ici :
▻https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/les-etats-unis-envisageraient-de-nommer-tony-blair-au-poste-de-gouverneur-t

et ici :
▻https://www.20minutes.fr/monde/israel/4175807-20250929-guerre-gaza-trump-attend-netanyahou-maison-blanche-promet

C’est troublant ...

#Tony_Blair #Palestine #mandat_britannique

(Et c’est sûrement cette idée d’un autre âge qui va « contribuer activement à la fin de la guerre ») ...

(1) Open Letter to Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft on the Future of GitHub, Trust, and Digital Sovereignty | LinkedIn
▻https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-satya-nadella-ceo-microsoft-future-github-dion-wiggins-f2yic

Dion Wiggins
Dion Wiggins
CTO at Omniscien Technologies | Board Member | Strategic Advisor | Consultant | Author
16 août 2025

16 August 2025

Dear Mr. Nadella (Satya Nadella) ,

As a developer of more than 40 years, across 33+ programming languages and even more platforms, I have seen the rise and fall of countless technologies, communities, and ecosystems. While I cannot speak for the global developer community as a whole, it is clear that a very large number of us feel the same deep sense of betrayal and alarm over Microsoft’s actions regarding GitHub. This letter is written not only from decades of professional experience and personal investment, but in solidarity with the thousands of developers, project maintainers, community leaders, and digital sovereignty advocates who have raised these same alarms. The issues are systemic, not individual.

Satya Nadella (2018): “We recognize the responsibility we take on with this agreement. We are committed to being stewards of the GitHub community, which will always remain open to all developers.”

In the above Microsoft Blog post, you promised that “GitHub will operate independently and remain an open platform for all developers,” and committed to “keeping GitHub independent and developer-first.” GitHub leadership assured the world that “GitHub will operate independently… That means GitHub retains its developer-first values, distinctive spirit, and open extensibility.”

Public promises on the Github website at the same time made simpler promises that have now been broken.

Nat Friedman (2018): “GitHub will operate independently… That means GitHub retains its developer-first values, distinctive spirit, and open extensibility.”

While Microsoft continues to highlight its open source credentials and assure developers that “nothing has changed” for users, the core issue is not superficial continuity, but the structural and strategic shift of GitHub from a genuinely independent, community platform to a fully integrated corporate asset. This is not about branding, but about irreversible changes to control, incentives, and accountability.

Microsoft Press Release (2025): “This transition enables us to accelerate GitHub’s contributions to Microsoft’s AI ecosystem.”

Today, those commitments are in question. As TechRadar reports: “Rather than appoint a new GitHub CEO, Microsoft will integrate GitHub more directly into CoreAI, led by Jay Parikh… GitHub will now report directly into its CoreAI division.” (TechRadar)

This reporting is echoed by The Verge, which noted that “Microsoft isn’t replacing Dohmke’s CEO position, and GitHub will be fully part of Microsoft instead of being run as a separate entity.” (The Verge)

These moves directly contradict the 2018 promise of independence and stewardship. They are not continuity but consolidation. For many in the community, this is not simply a broken promise but an outright lie. Your words from the past: “We recognize the responsibility we take on with this agreement. We are committed to being stewards of the GitHub community, which will retain its developer-first ethos, operate independently and remain an open platform”, now stand exposed as empty assurances at best, or an intentional lie at worst.

I repeat these phrases because you have not lived up to them and they seem unimportant to you today. Just a tool of the past, discarded once the acquisition goals were complete.

Microsoft’s decision to absorb GitHub into its CoreAI division, eliminate its independent leadership, and embed it deeply within the company’s AI and cloud business directly contradicts these promises. The official press release states this is to “accelerate GitHub’s contributions to Microsoft’s AI ecosystem.” Microsoft executives openly describe how “GitHub’s vast code corpus is foundational for the next era of Copilot and AI model development.”

This is not just a broken promise. It is an assault on open source itself. A collapse of credibility with the global developer community, and a direct threat to technological self-determination for every contributor, organization, and nation that depends on independent infrastructure.

Here is just a small sample of the many negative reactions to this announcement. These articles show a clear consensus across reputable tech publications: GitHub’s absorption into CoreAI is widely seen as a major structural shift, and for many, a direct betrayal of its once independent and developer-first identity:

The Verge – “GitHub just got less independent at Microsoft after CEO resignation”

Discusses how GitHub’s autonomy ends as leadership shifts under Microsoft’s CoreAI structure, posing a clear signal of deeper absorption. (The Verge)

TechRadar – “GitHub CEO resigns – is this the latest sign of its Microsoft absorption?”

Highlights the absence of a successor and emphasizes the strategic assimilation into Microsoft’s AI ecosystem. (TechRadar)

IT Pro – “What Thomas Dohmke’s departure means for GitHub”

Analyzes how the CEO’s exit signals major governance changes and closer alignment with Microsoft’s AI strategy. (IT Pro)

Windows Central – “GitHub Just Got Assimilated—CEO Out, Copilot In, Microsoft All Over It”

Signposts the end of GitHub’s independence and elevated priority of AI within Microsoft’s internal structure. (Windows Central)

Tom’s Hardware – “GitHub folds into Microsoft following CEO resignation—once independent programming site now part of ‘CoreAI’ team”

Explicitly frames the move as ending GitHub’s independence and compares it to other Microsoft acquisitions that lost identity over time. (Tom’s Hardware)

The Collapse of Trust: Big Tech’s Greed, Digital Sovereignty, and Its Consequences

Trust is the foundation of every open source project, community, and movement. Open source cannot function without the assumption that platforms and stewards act in good faith, respect contributors, and put the long-term health of the ecosystem ahead of short-term profit.

The breakdown of trust caused by the actions of Microsoft and other Big Tech firms is more than a single betrayal. It signals to the entire world that the social contract underpinning open source and digital agency can be bought, sold, and quietly rewritten by whoever controls the infrastructure.

It is disingenuous to claim that developers are “free to leave” when practical migration is obstructed by technical and network effects, and when so much of the world’s open source and digital sovereignty ecosystem is already tied into GitHub’s infrastructure. Genuine freedom requires open exit, true interoperability, and transparent guarantees. None of these can exist in an environment of creeping lock-in and vertical integration.

When companies that present themselves as stewards of community assets choose instead to exploit those assets for proprietary gain, they undermine not just their own credibility, but the very possibility of global cooperation in technology. Each time a platform is captured, centralized, or redirected to serve corporate interests, it pushes developers and innovators away from openness and into silos of mistrust and fragmentation.

No security, compliance, or anti-abuse argument can justify stripping developers, organizations, and nations of their digital sovereignty, or transferring unilateral control over critical digital assets to a single commercial actor. Security and compliance can and must be implemented in ways that preserve agency, transparency, and open governance.

Digital sovereignty is not a slogan. It is a core policy objective of governments, regulatory agencies, and open source communities worldwide, with documented legal frameworks and active enforcement across the EU, China, India, and many others. The concerns raised here are not hypothetical or parochial. They are echoed by policymakers, technologists, and civil society leaders globally.

This is not an isolated incident. The industry has seen similar betrayals before: Oracle’s handling of Java, Google’s abrupt shutdown of Google Code, and previous pivots by Microsoft itself. Each time, the developer community paid the price: wasted effort, lost code, broken commitments, and a new wave of skepticism toward platform promises.

The long-term impact is already visible:

Developers are increasingly hesitant to share their best work on public platforms for fear it will be extracted, repackaged, and monetized by corporate actors without consent or fair return.
Communities fracture, as trust erodes and contributors seek alternative venues or attempt to rebuild trusted enclaves outside Big Tech’s reach.
Innovation slows, as the collaborative advantage of open source is replaced by guarded, siloed development and legal maneuvering to prevent exploitation.
Governments and institutions start to question whether global digital infrastructure can be trusted at all, leading to regulatory walls, data localization, and a new era of digital sovereignty where nations must assert control over their technology dependencies to protect their agency and interests.

This is not just about code or business models. It is about the collective investment of millions of developers worldwide—years of unpaid, voluntary, and mission-driven work that made GitHub the backbone of modern software. That trust, once lost, cannot be restored by marketing or legal boilerplate. It is about digital agency and the fundamental right to control one’s own digital assets, collaborations, and infrastructure choices without the threat of unilateral interference, commercial extraction, or external lock-in.

Big Tech’s willingness to break trust for short-term advantage is sowing the seeds for a world where the promise of open, global collaboration and shared digital sovereignty is replaced by suspicion, legal battles, and technical walls. The more platforms like GitHub are captured and redirected for private enrichment, the less likely it is that the next generation of developers, communities, or nations will believe in or participate in open source at all.

Without trust, open source collapses. Without sovereignty, collaboration corrodes. And once credibility is gone, it is almost impossible to rebuild.

The world is watching, not your assurances, but your actions.

These concerns are not academic or hypothetical. They reflect the real and growing alarm expressed by thousands of developers, project leaders, digital sovereignty advocates, and policymakers worldwide. Digital sovereignty is not a slogan, but a legal and strategic reality, shaping government, enterprise, and technical policy from the European Union to Asia and the Global South. No reassurances, PR statements, or cherry-picked open source releases can substitute for the specific, transparent, and enforceable commitments demanded here. The complexity and length of this letter are necessary because the stakes—for global innovation, autonomy, and trust—could not be higher.

The following questions must be answered directly, with transparency, not PR spin. This is about the survival of open source as a trusted, collaborative foundation for global innovation, and about the preservation of digital sovereignty and agency for everyone who relies on these platforms.

1. Do you acknowledge that folding GitHub into Microsoft’s CoreAI division and revoking its independence directly contradicts your explicit public commitments to keep GitHub open and independent? If not, what specific facts justify your claim that these moves are not a corporate takeover and betrayal?

Microsoft pledged that GitHub would remain independent, open, and developer-first. Integrating GitHub into CoreAI, eliminating operational independence, and repurposing it as a pipeline for Microsoft’s AI ambitions is the very definition of a corporate takeover.

2. What concrete, legally binding measures will you implement, beyond policy statements, to guarantee that GitHub will never be used as a captive data source for Microsoft’s proprietary AI models or to lock developers and organizations into your ecosystem, undermining their digital sovereignty and agency?

The world sees this as a strip and extract operation: first mining community content, then enclosing it, and finally locking developers, communities, and entire organizations into Microsoft’s ecosystem, which is the opposite of open source and sovereign control.

3. What immediate, auditable steps will Microsoft take to repair the breach of trust with developers and platform stakeholders—including independent oversight and enforceable guarantees—to prove that GitHub will not be exploited for Microsoft’s commercial gain or to undermine the digital sovereignty of its users?

Repeated public promises were made that GitHub would retain its developer-first values and open extensibility. The loss of trust is not just about business decisions—it is about whether open source contributors, organizations, and governments can ever again believe in the commitments of those who control their code, collaboration, and infrastructure.

4. Will Microsoft commit, by enforceable policy and public documentation, that no public GitHub repositories will be used for training proprietary AI models or commercial products without explicit opt-in consent from project owners, thus protecting the digital agency and autonomy of all contributors?

Developers globally are concerned that their open source contributions are being silently harvested for commercial AI without consent, attribution, or compensation.

5. Will Microsoft provide developers and organizations with granular, real-time tools to track and control every instance where their code or metadata is accessed, processed, or used for AI or commercial purposes, along with a public log of such activity—empowering all users to exercise digital agency over their work and assets?

Developers have a right to track and control use of their code in AI and data pipelines. Sovereign organizations and communities have an equal right to transparent control over their assets and digital infrastructure.

6. Will Microsoft legally guarantee that all GitHub users retain unrestricted rights and technical means to export or migrate their code, data, and issue history at any time, without penalty or delay, and that no feature or license changes will restrict this freedom or diminish their digital sovereignty?

The health of the open source ecosystem depends on freedom of movement, agency, and interoperability—not closed integration with any vendor’s stack or barriers that undermine organizational or national self-determination.

7. Will Microsoft commit, by contract and technology, to never implement, enable, or cooperate in any form of kill switch, access denial, or politically motivated censorship affecting GitHub projects, regardless of pressure from governments or commercial interests—thus respecting the digital sovereignty and agency of all users worldwide?

Centralization amplifies the risk of politically or commercially motivated interference in developer access, especially during periods of geopolitical tension. Digital sovereignty means ensuring no single entity can unilaterally block, censor, or deny access to critical digital assets.

8. Will Microsoft agree to continuous, binding, independent audits of GitHub’s operations, with real enforcement power and board representation for open source foundations such as the Linux Foundation, FSF, or OSI, to safeguard the sovereignty and agency of the broader community?

A platform of GitHub’s global importance cannot be accountable only to its corporate owner. Recognized foundations must be invited to participate in this oversight. No internal Microsoft committee or advisory board can substitute for independent, enforceable, foundation-driven oversight with real transparency, developer representation, and binding authority. Only governance with teeth can rebuild trust and protect digital agency.

9. Will Microsoft publish a full, advance public record of all technical, legal, and policy changes that affect GitHub’s integration with Microsoft’s AI and cloud infrastructure, including any changes to data access, contributor rights, or project governance—providing all stakeholders with the information they need to protect their digital sovereignty and agency?

Developers, organizations, and governments need to understand the real scope of integration, dependencies, and any hidden impacts on autonomy, sovereignty, or compliance.

10. Will Microsoft publicly accept binding legal and financial liability, including retroactive remedies, if any use of GitHub code, data, or metadata for AI or commercial purposes is found to violate open source licenses, contributor agreements, relevant law, or the digital rights and sovereignty of its users?

The risk of legal and ethical breach is not theoretical—it is a live issue globally. This letter calls for binding, publicly auditable commitments, not ambiguous legalese, policy footnotes, or unenforceable pledges. The stakes demand real-world, transparent, and contractually enforceable action.

Specific Remedies the Community Expects

To ensure that trust is restored and preserved, and to provide the minimum foundation for moving forward in a world where digital sovereignty and agency matter, the following concrete remedies should be enacted:

Restore an independent GitHub CEO and governance board, separate from Microsoft’s AI, cloud, and product divisions, with real authority and transparency to protect community interests and platform autonomy.
Publish and enforce a clear, public data use and extraction policy for AI and all other Microsoft product development, including explicit opt-in or opt-out for project owners regarding code, metadata, and issue data, respecting the digital sovereignty of every contributor and community.
Submit to regular, external audits by recognized organizations such as the Linux Foundation, Free Software Foundation, or Open Source Initiative, with findings published in full to ensure accountability and agency for all stakeholders.
Contractually guarantee migration and export rights for all repositories and developer data, ensuring there are no technical, legal, or policy barriers to leaving the platform, thus safeguarding the freedom and digital sovereignty of every user.
Publish quarterly transparency reports detailing code access, AI extraction activity, and all data-sharing between GitHub and Microsoft’s internal systems, giving all users the visibility needed to maintain their own agency and control.

Pointing to isolated positive actions or PR initiatives does not address the irreversible structural shift underway, nor does it remedy the breach of trust caused by consolidating platform power without transparent, community-backed guarantees.

What happens next matters. If these concerns are not addressed openly and concretely, many developers, projects, organizations, and even governments will have to reconsider their continued trust in GitHub’s stewardship and Microsoft’s commitments to open source and digital sovereignty. Major voices in the community are already calling for alternatives and greater scrutiny of platform governance. I encourage other developers, open source advocates, digital sovereignty experts, and independent observers to follow this issue closely and demand real accountability for the future of digital collaboration and autonomous control.

I invite Microsoft, and you personally, to respond to these questions in a public forum or published statement so the entire developer and digital sovereignty community can judge for themselves whether these concerns will be taken seriously and addressed with binding commitments. Setting a clear, reasonable timeline for such a response—for example, within 30 days—would show respect for the global community that helped make GitHub what it is.

If no substantive answers are provided, many will conclude that Microsoft is unwilling to rebuild trust or respect the values that made open source and digital sovereignty possible in the first place. If silence or spin is all that follows, developers, communities, and national stakeholders will begin organizing alternatives, engaging with independent foundations for oversight, and calling for regulatory scrutiny of platform stewardship on an industry-wide scale.

What Microsoft does next will set a precedent for all of Big Tech. This moment is about more than one company or one platform. It is about whether open source, digital sovereignty, and the collective trust, investment, and creativity of millions can survive in an era of corporate consolidation and broken promises.

While I am only one voice among many, thousands of developers, project leaders, and digital-sovereignty advocates echo these concerns. The false assurances made in 2018, documented above, are the root cause of this collapse of credibility. We have no interest in PR spin, empty reassurances, or legal jargon. Only real, specific action and binding commitments will be accepted by the community. Thank you for your attention. The world is watching what you do next.

Sincerely,

Dion Wiggins

A concerned developer of 40+ years, writing in solidarity with the global open source and digital sovereignty community

#OpenLetter #Microsoft #GitHub #OpenSource #DigitalSovereignty #CoreAI #Developers #Betrayal #Trust #AI

#Intelligence_artificielle #Emmerdification #GitHub #Microsoft #Logiciel_libre #Economie_numérique

(1) GitHub’s Fall : Microsoft’s AI Takeover, Developer Betrayal, and the Next Fight for Digital Sovereignty | LinkedIn
▻https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/githubs-fall-microsofts-ai-takeover-developer-betrayal-dion-wiggins-oyetc/?trackingId=9%2BXyAt0nQPavxozgN2eU%2Fw%3D%3D

Un très bel exemple d’emmerdification.
L’internet est globalement bâti sur la confiance. Les plateformes ont tué cette confiance. Que reste-t-il ?

Dion Wiggins
Dion Wiggins
CTO at Omniscien Technologies | Board Member | Strategic Advisor | Consultant | Author
15 août 2025

Microsoft’s Assimilation of GitHub Is Another Step in the Death of Platform Trust, the Rise of AI Extraction, and the Global Struggle to Reclaim Digital Sovereignty

TL;DR:

Microsoft’s full-scale takeover of GitHub is the final blow to developer trust, turning the world’s open source backbone into proprietary AI fuel and erasing any illusion of platform neutrality. Once again, promises were made, trust is broken; just another step in content theft that Big Tech and Big AI think they can get away with. Developers, governments, and organizations worldwide are now at the mercy of corporate and geopolitical power plays. The only way forward is community-led rebellion, a new, truly sovereign commons, before software freedom is lost for good.
Introduction

Let’s be brutally clear:

Microsoft’s decision to fully absorb GitHub into its AI empire marks the end of any pretense of independence, neutrality, or respect for the developer community.

This is not some routine restructuring. It is a hostile act, engineered by one of the most powerful tech monopolies on the planet, to seize control of the world’s open source infrastructure and weaponize it for corporate AI extraction.

Long before GitHub, back when I started coding in 1981 on a Sinclair ZX81, sharing code meant something fundamentally different. We passed around code through magazines, printed in HEX or Sinclair BASIC, pages you painstakingly typed in line by line. The real learning didn’t come from retyping the code from the magazine. It came from the hours spent debugging, chasing down errors, and deciphering the logic behind every command until you understood what was really happening under the hood. You had to, because you were almost guaranteed to make a few typos. That shared struggle built a culture of trust, resilience, and real collaboration. We were communities long before platforms, and every bit of progress came from open sharing, not corporate gatekeeping.
Contenu de l’article
This is what sharing code looked like when trust was built by communities, not platforms. If you didn’t learn by debugging pages like this, you missed what real collaboration meant.

Since that time, I have coded in 33 programming languages and on even more hardware platforms. The languages ranged from CICS COBOL on IBM 3090 Mainframes, dBase, Paradox, C, C++, Java, Python, and many more. I have seen, and built for, eras where the stack was closed, open, fractured, and federated. The unifying theme was always the same: community, mutual reliance, and the freedom to learn from and build on each other’s work.

We moved on to share code via BBS, then floppy disks traded at user groups, Usenet groups, FTP servers, and early web forums. Each shift in medium changed the speed and reach, but not the spirit. Sharing was learning, but the goal was our benefit: we shared because we all gained. The incentive was to solve problems together, to advance our own projects, and to make each other better—not to feed a distant corporate engine or surrender ownership for someone else’s profit cycle.

As the internet matured, so did the ways we collaborated. We evolved through centralized hosting platforms like SourceForge, Google Code, Bitbucket, and others that tried to streamline sharing and version control for a new generation of distributed teams. Each new tool promised greater freedom and productivity, but also laid the groundwork for new forms of dependency. Progressively, GitHub became the default home of the world’s open source code, a place that was supposed to serve the developer community above all else. For a time, it did.

GitHub earned our trust through transparency, reliability, and a relentless focus on developer needs. It was a place where anyone, from student to CTO, could contribute, fork, learn, and share. Over time, it took over and became the home of nearly all developers, or at the very least, the place everyone drew from to solve problems, learn new approaches, or see how the best in the field worked. GitHub wasn’t just a platform. It became the backbone of modern software and the largest collective repository of technical knowledge, learning, and creativity the world has ever seen.

Microsoft acquired GitHub in 2018, and concerns were immediately raised across the developer world. This was the same Microsoft whose executives had, for years, publicly denounced open source—famously calling Linux a “cancer” during the Ballmer era.

Microsoft promised to behave, swearing public loyalty to open source and pledging non-interference. But we should have known better. If you trusted Microsoft to keep its hands off, you ignored decades of precedent.

Six years later, that promise is void.

History shows exactly how this script plays out: trust is extended, compliance is promised, and the moment the calculus changes, those promises are discarded in favor of control and profit.

On July 3, 2024, GitHub slammed the door on over 8 million developers overnight, limiting access to repositories in sanctioned countries with zero warning and zero recourse. Years of work, public sector infrastructure, and countless collaborative projects were cut off at the stroke of a pen—no appeals, no explanation. One developer’s message summed up the impact: “I woke up and years of work were gone—no warning, no appeal, just a wall.” This wasn’t just a technical incident. This was entire digital economies, civic tech initiatives, and national R&D pipelines unplugged in a single act of compliance theater.

If you are a developer, founder, policymaker, or anyone who actually cares about digital sovereignty, understand this: what just happened to GitHub is not just a platform betrayal. It is a textbook case of platform capture, content theft, and the industrialization of trust violation at a global scale. Eight million developers, hundreds of thousands of organizations, and entire national digital strategies, locked out with a single boardroom decision.

This isn’t some far-off warning, it’s reality. If you think your platform, your contract, or your sovereignty is safe, look at GitHub and understand: nobody is immune. This is not only about open source. This is about who controls infrastructure, who sets the terms of participation, and who gets to decide when you are switched off.

Trust is not eroded over time. Trust is extracted, spent, and discarded the second it gets in the way of a corporate agenda. Microsoft’s move is a warning shot to every government, industry, and developer who still believes in platform neutrality or the fantasy of corporate stewardship. The evidence is in: the era of “safe” digital infrastructure is over, and the price of complacency is total dependency.

If you’re still betting your future on platform promises, understand: what happened to GitHub isn’t the exception. It’s the new rule.
The End of GitHub’s Independence: Bait, Switch, and Betrayal

GitHub was once our home. Developers built it line by line, repo by repo, believing it would always be a place governed by community, transparency, and consent. Microsoft bought it for $7.5 billion in 2018, promising independence and respect for what made GitHub special.

Satya Nadella stated in June 2018, “GitHub will retain its developer-first ethos and operate independently to provide an open platform for all developers.” Just six years later, that promise is officially void.

Satya Nadella, Thomas Dohmke, and every exec in sight paraded the same lines:

"We will keep GitHub separate. We will honor the open source community. We will not interfere.” - They lied!!!

Anyone who still believes those statements is ignoring the entire playbook of tech consolidation.

Fast forward: Microsoft tossed those promises aside the second it became profitable to do so. Thomas Dohmke is out. The buffer between the world’s developer commons and a trillion-dollar AI behemoth has been erased. No more “operating as a separate company.” GitHub is now a naked asset on Microsoft’s balance sheet. Your code, your contributions, your project histories, and the entire behavioral exhaust of decades of global software collaboration are now just another dataset for Microsoft’s AI machine. No loyalty, no consultation, no apology.

This is a direct breach of trust. Microsoft’s assurances were always a lie of convenience. Trust was not eroded over time; it was extracted and spent, then weaponized for shareholder value. If you still think “platform neutrality” exists under corporate ownership, you have not been paying attention.
Trust Broken Again: If Microsoft Lied About GitHub, What Makes You Think You’re Safe?

Let’s cut the spin—Microsoft’s betrayal of GitHub isn’t just a footnote. It’s a massive, public display of how little the company values its own commitments, and it should send shockwaves through every organization, government, and IT leader still betting their business on Microsoft’s promises.

If Microsoft will gut the world’s biggest open source platform for a quick AI land grab, what stops them from doing the same with Azure, Office 365, Teams, LinkedIn, or even Windows? The answer is nothing. When trust is disposable and every “independent” product is one boardroom meeting away from total assimilation, all assurances are worthless.

This isn’t just about developer tools. Microsoft has a long, ugly track record of buying trust, locking in users, then pulling the rug when convenient: Skype, Yammer, Nokia, LinkedIn, and now GitHub. The real message: user autonomy, sovereignty, and even contractual guarantees are just PR camouflage for an extraction business model. The minute your data, infrastructure, or community is useful to Microsoft’s next product cycle, they will rewrite the rules, lock the doors, and leave you with nothing but a press release and an invoice.

So ask yourself: if “operational independence” at GitHub was vaporized overnight, why do you think your cloud, your data, or your contracts are sacred? How long before “Azure Sovereign Cloud” or “data residency” are exposed as another bait-and-switch, rewritten in legalese to serve Microsoft’s bottom line?

Trust is dead. If you’re still handing Microsoft the keys, you’re next in line. Plan your exit, or wait your turn to be betrayed.
Developer-First Is Dead: Welcome to the Age of AI Extraction

The narrative shift is complete. The question is no longer “What do developers need?” It is now “What does Microsoft’s AI pipeline need next?” Every signal from the open source ecosystem will now be surveilled, productized, and stripped for anything that can fuel Microsoft’s proprietary Copilot models or whatever AI monstrosity Redmond dreams up next.

What does this mean in practice? Billions of lines of code, much of it published under licenses like GPL, MIT, and Apache, are being siphoned off for AI training, often in violation of license terms and always without meaningful consent. In November 2022, a class action lawsuit (Doe v. GitHub, Microsoft, OpenAI) was filed accusing Microsoft of “systematically violating open source licenses by using code for AI training without compliance or attribution.” This isn’t just academic: the legal and compliance risks are now headline news, and Microsoft’s only real response has been to double down on integration, not transparency or consent.

Copilot’s entire existence is a monument to this content heist: scraping, remixing, and monetizing work created by others, then hiding it behind black-box APIs. If you are an artist, writer, or musician, this story should sound familiar. The exact same playbook is being run: take the community’s work, declare it fair game, enclose it in a proprietary system, and dare anyone to fight back in court.
Big AI’s Pattern: The War on Consent

Microsoft’s capture of GitHub is not a one-off blunder. It is part of a relentless pattern of Big AI and Silicon Valley platform capture. The sequence never changes:

Win community trust with promises of independence and “do no evil.”
Extract maximum value and user data while compliance and transparency are still assumed.
Change the rules, citing “innovation” or “efficiency” as cover for unilateral decisions.
Lock in users by making alternatives inconvenient or technically inferior.
Weaponize user data and contributions as proprietary fuel for corporate AI.
Rewrite the ethical narrative after the fact, hoping developer outrage will fade.

Every major tech platform that swore to serve the public now serves its investors and partners, from YouTube to Facebook to GitHub. The result is always the same: creators lose agency and ownership, and their work is turned into untraceable fuel for corporate AI. In the case of GitHub, this theft is not just creative or economic—it is existential. The source code for the world’s infrastructure, supply chains, critical systems, and national digital ambitions is now held hostage to Microsoft’s product cycle and the whims of US law and policy.
Geopolitics: Software Sovereignty as a National Security Issue

If you are not worried about the geopolitical dimension, you are sleepwalking into disaster. GitHub is now an explicit US strategic asset, giving Microsoft and the US government de facto leverage over the global software supply chain. Think this is just rhetoric? Ask the countries, companies, and NGOs who have found themselves suddenly cut off from cloud services, developer tools, or code access because they fell on the wrong side of a sanction or export control order.

Dependency is now risk, and risk is now the default state for anyone outside Microsoft’s immediate reach. This is not theoretical. It is happening in real time. In 2019, GitHub blocked access for developers in Crimea, Iran, and Syria, instantly severing entire regions from open-source collaboration overnight as a result of US government sanctions. Projects, user accounts, and critical repositories were rendered inaccessible without warning, demonstrating exactly how quickly a platform under US control can become a geopolitical chokepoint.

This is only accelerating as AI becomes the core of economic, military, and political power worldwide.
The Real Human Cost: Developer Community and Identity Under Attack

This isn’t just about code. This is about identity. Developers made GitHub what it was. The betrayal here is personal, and it is permanent. This was supposed to be the era of open collaboration and peer-driven software. Instead, we are watching the industrialization of trust violation. The OSS world is being strip-mined for raw material and left with nothing but glossy blog posts and “AI innovation” press releases in return.

Do not underestimate the irreversibility of this shift. Once a generation of code and developer metadata is absorbed into Microsoft’s AI models, it cannot be reclaimed, re-licensed, or erased. The damage is permanent, not cyclical.
The Only Real Answer: Wikipedia for Code, Community Rebellion, and True Sovereignty

There is a way out, but only if the community wakes up. Every monopoly move sows the seeds of its own disruption. The next platform must not be another VC-backed honeypot or government proxy. It must be a real public good, with transparent, democratic governance, legal guarantees against extraction, and technical safeguards against future capture. A Wikipedia for code, built by and for the people who actually write the world’s software.

This means open governance, clear user ownership, funding models that do not rely on surveillance or advertising, and explicit legal structures to prevent future consolidation. If you care about open source, digital sovereignty, or even basic creative justice, it is time to stop waiting for rescue and start building. The only thing more dangerous than Microsoft’s AI-first strategy is developer inertia in the face of it.
Bottom Line

Microsoft’s capture of GitHub is not just another corporate merger. It is a milestone in the ongoing war over who owns the future of software and, by extension, digital society. The era of developer-first collaboration is over. What replaces it depends on what the global community does next. If we let this pass, we are complicit in the theft of a generation’s work and the creation of a world where software freedom is just a nostalgic memory.

Trust is gone. The buffer is gone. Your code is now their commodity. This is your final warning. Either build the next great commons, or watch everything you created become another trophy for Big AI.

The takeover of GitHub is not a story about one company or one platform, it is a warning shot fired at the very foundation of modern digital society. Every developer, every business, every government who shrugs this off is handing Microsoft the keys not just to code, but to the future of innovation, collaboration, and control itself. The era of platform trust is over. The game now is raw leverage, forced dependency, and the systematic stripping of everything that made open source powerful in the first place.

Microsoft is not alone. Big AI and Big Tech across the board have been emboldened by years of weak oversight and complacency. They are moving in lockstep, seizing communities, centralizing infrastructure, rewriting the rules, and building business models on the backs of your labor and your trust. From Google to Amazon to Meta and beyond, the playbook is always the same: capture the commons, extract the value, lock the doors, and dare anyone to challenge the new order. They are not competing for users, they are dividing up the future.

Access is not a technical privilege, it is a geopolitical weapon. The value created by global contributors can be seized or blocked in an instant, at the whim of corporate or national interests.

This is the real risk. When access can be blocked or revoked at the whim of a corporation or by the order of a foreign government, sovereignty is a fantasy. Your work, especially in open source, was never meant for just the community that Microsoft or the US government happens to approve of this week. It was meant for the world, for anyone with the curiosity and drive to build. Now, that universal promise is being systematically dismantled and replaced with selective, politicized exclusion. Access, participation, and even recognition itself are now contingent—not on merit, but on compliance with the agenda of whoever holds the keys. When your contributions can be walled off, seized, or deleted by a platform operator or foreign sanction, the danger is not just economic or technical. It is a threat to global collaboration, to knowledge itself, and to the very principle of shared human progress.

True digital sovereignty means unconditional, universal access and control. Anything less is just dependency, leaving you at the mercy of platform owners or the political whims of their government.

If we allow this to stand, we are not just complicit in the loss of a generation’s work—we are witnesses to the extinction of software freedom as a living reality. There are no more neutral platforms, no benevolent stewards, and no second chances. Act now. Reclaim your code, build new institutions, and refuse to let Big AI’s hunger write the rules of your world. If you do not, everything you create will belong to someone else, locked away and weaponized against you.

This is not just the end of an era. It is the start of a new digital regime where trust is dead and sovereignty is what you take back, or you lose forever.

#GitHub #Microsoft #OpenSource #AIGovernance #Sovereignty #ContentTheft
About the Author

About the Author Dion Wiggins is Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of Omniscien Technologies, where he leads the development of Language Studio—a secure, regionally hosted AI platform for digital sovereignty. It powers translation, generative AI, and media workflows for governments and enterprises needing data control and computational autonomy. The platform is trusted by public sector institutions worldwide.

A pioneer of Asia’s Internet economy, Dion founded Asia Online, one of the region’s first ISPs in the early 1990’s, and has since advised over 100 multinational firms, including LVMH, Intuit, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, IBM, and Cisco.

With 30+ years at the crossroads of technology, geopolitics, and infrastructure, Dion is a global expert on AI governance, cybersecurity, and cross-border data policy. He coined the term “Great Firewall of China”, and contributed to national ICT strategies—including China’s 11th Five-Year Plan.

He has advised governments and ministries across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, shaping national tech agendas at the ministerial and intergovernmental level.

As Vice President and Research Director at Gartner, Dion led global research on outsourcing, cybersecurity, open-source, localization, and e-government, influencing top-level public and private sector strategies.

He received the Chairman’s Commendation Award from Bill Gates for software innovation and holds the U.S. O-1 Visa for Extraordinary Ability—awarded to the top 5% in their field globally.

A frequent keynote speaker and trusted advisor, Dion has delivered insights at over 1,000 global forums, including UN summits, Gartner Symposium/Xpo, and government briefings. His work has been cited in The Economist, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bloomberg, BBC, and over 100,000 media reports.

At the core of his mission:

“The future will not be open by default—it will be sovereign by design, or not at all.”

#Intelligence_artificielle #Emmerdification #GitHub #Microsoft #Logiciel_libre #Economie_numérique

bahdotsh/wrkflw: Validate and Run #github #actions locally.
▻https://github.com/bahdotsh/wrkflw

— Permalink

#wrkflw #CI #CD #CICD #selfhosted

#github - herrhotzenplotz/gcli: Portable #git(hub|lab|tea)/Forgejo/Bugzilla CLI tool
▻https://github.com/herrhotzenplotz/gcli

— Permalink

#gcli #gitlab #gitea #forgejo #bugzilla

#github just got less independent at #microsoft after CEO resignation
▻https://www.theverge.com/news/757461/microsoft-github-thomas-dohmke-resignation-coreai-team-transition

— Permalink

#coreai

#github Wants the #EU to Fund #open_source
▻https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/07/github-eu-open-source-funding

GitHub is urging the EU to create a €350m fund for open source maintenance. But as Big Tech profits, should taxpayers be the ones to pay the tab? You’re reading GitHub Wants the EU to Fund Open Source, a blog post from OMG! Ubuntu. Do not reproduce elsewhere without permission.

#News #foss_fund #Microsoft

ThinkingLabs:: Thierry de Pauw - On the Benefits of #trunk-based Development
▻https://thinkinglabs.io/articles/2025/07/21/on-the-benefits-of-trunk-based-development.html

— Permalink

#dev #cognition #dvcs #git #branching

#Canonical Donating $120,000 to Open Source Projects This Year
▻https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/05/canonical-commits-funds-open-source-devs

Canonical commits to donating $120k to the open source developers building the projects and tools that help power the Ubuntu ecosystem. You’re reading Canonical Donating $120,000 to Open Source Projects This Year, a blog post from OMG! Ubuntu. Do not reproduce elsewhere without permission.

#News #github

#obtainium: Get #android #app Updates Directly From the Source.
▻https://obtainium.imranr.dev

— Permalink

#installer #github

Pour la reconnaissance du #génocide des #Roms et des Voyageurs

▻https://contre-attaque.net/2025/04/11/pour-la-reconnaissance-du-genocide-des-roms-et-des-voyageurs

FOISNEAU Lise, Le Génocide des « nomades » : figures du déni, revue L’homme, 2024

▻https://shs.cairn.info/revue-l-homme-2024-1-page-113?lang=fr

La question politique qui reste désormais en suspens est celle de savoir pourquoi certains historiens ont décidé de refuser aux Roms, #Sinti, #Manouches, #Gitans, #Yéniches et #Voyageurs le statut de victimes d’un génocide sur le sol français. Il reste aussi à s’interroger sur le choix de l’État de soutenir un projet de musée-mémorial qui nie la portée raciale et génocidaire de la persécution des « Nomades ». En 2024, les descendants ayant résisté à la sédentarisation forcée initiée après-guerre ne peuvent toujours pas choisir librement leurs lieux de vie et demeurent enfermés dans un réseau d’aires d’accueil. Ce dispositif fonctionne grâce à l’identification d’un groupe donné – les « gens du voyage » – qui est encore fiché par les services de police et de gendarmerie, mais aussi par le biais de terrains désignés, d’un monitorage de leurs activités économiques et d’une surveillance de leurs pratiques éducatives. Le débat autour de la qualification des persécutions de la Seconde Guerre mondiale n’est donc pas réservé aux historiens : la manière dont il est posé détermine, en partie, les relations que nous entretenons aujourd’hui avec les Roms, Sinti, Manouches, Gitans, Yéniches et Voyageurs.

#anti-tsiganisme

#git-who: Git blame for file trees
▻https://github.com/sinclairtarget/git-who

— Permalink

#gitwho #dev #softwareengineering #authorship #statistics

How Core Git Developers Configure Git
▻https://blog.gitbutler.com/how-git-core-devs-configure-git

Celle-ci est sympa quand on a une liste de tags à rallonge :)

#git #config

#tangled: social-enabled #git collaboration platform, built on top of the AT Protocol
▻https://blog.tangled.sh/intro

— Permalink

#atproto #federated #dev #dvcs

Thousands of exposed #github repositories, now private, can still be accessed through #copilot | TechCrunch
▻https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/26/thousands-of-exposed-github-repositories-now-private-can-still-be-access

— Permalink

#dev #privacy

dlvhdr/diffnav: A #git #diff pager based on delta but with a file tree, à la GitHub.
▻https://github.com/dlvhdr/diffnav

— Permalink

#cli #TUI #diffnav

git - How to get rid of “would clobber existing tag” - Stack Overflow
▻https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58031165/how-to-get-rid-of-would-clobber-existing-tag

! [rejected] xxx -> xxx (would clobber existing tag)

solution git fetch --tags --force

Reason : On remote, someone deletes a tag and creates a new one with the same name, then this will happen on your local

#git #rejected #composer

Le déni des #persécutions génocidaires des « #Nomades »

Le dernier interné « nomade » des #camps français a été libéré il y a presque 80 ans. Pourtant, il n’existe pas de décompte exact des victimes « nomades » de la #Seconde_Guerre_mondiale en France, ni de #mémorial nominatif exhaustif. Le site internet collaboratif NOMadeS, mis en ligne le 6 décembre 2024, se donne pour mission de combler cette lacune. Pourquoi aura-t-il fallu attendre huit décennies avant qu’une telle initiative ne soit lancée ?
Les « Nomades » étaient, selon la loi du 16 juillet 1912, « des “#roulottiers” n’ayant ni domicile, ni résidence, ni patrie, la plupart #vagabonds, présentant le caractère ethnique particulier aux #romanichels, #bohémiens, #tziganes, #gitanos[1] ».

Cette #loi_raciale contraignait les #Roms, les #Manouches, les #Sinti, les #Gitans, les #Yéniches et les #Voyageurs à détenir un #carnet_anthropométrique devant être visé à chaque départ et arrivée dans un lieu. Entre 1939 et 1946, les personnes que l’administration française fit entrer dans la catégorie de « Nomades » furent interdites de circulation, assignées à résidence, internées dans des camps, et certaines d’entre elles furent déportées.

Avant même l’occupation de la France par les nazis, le dernier gouvernement de la Troisième République décréta le 6 avril 1940 l’#assignation_à_résidence des « Nomades » : ces derniers furent contraints de rejoindre une #résidence_forcée ou un camp. Prétextant que ces « Nomades » représentaient un danger pour la sécurité du pays, la #Troisième_République en état de guerre leur appliqua des mesures qui n’auraient jamais été prises en temps de paix, mais qui s’inscrivaient parfaitement dans la continuité des politiques anti-nomades d’avant-guerre.

Le 4 octobre 1940, les Allemands ordonnèrent l’internement des « #Zigeuner [tsiganes] » en France. L’administration française traduisit « Zigeuner » par « Nomades » et appliqua aux « Nomades » les lois raciales nazies. Les personnes classées comme « Nomades » furent alors regroupées dans une soixantaine de camps sur l’ensemble du territoire métropolitain, tant en zone libre qu’en zone occupée.

À la fin de la guerre, la Libération ne signifia pas la liberté pour les « Nomades » : ils demeurèrent en effet assignés à résidence et internés jusqu’en juillet 1946, date à laquelle la #liberté_de_circulation leur fut rendue sous condition. Ils devaient toujours être munis de leur carnet anthropométrique. La loi de 1912, au titre de laquelle les persécutions génocidaires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale furent commises sur le territoire français, ne fut pas abrogée, mais appliquée avec sévérité jusqu’en janvier 1969. La catégorie administrative de « Nomades » céda alors la place à celle de « #gens_du_voyage » et de nouvelles mesures discriminatoires furent adoptées à leur encontre.

L’occultation de la persécution des « Nomades » (1944-1970)

En 1948, le ministère de la Santé publique et de la Population mena une vaste enquête sur les « Nomades ». Les résultats montrent que plus d’un tiers des services départementaux interrogés savaient assez précisément ce qu’avaient subi les « Nomades » de leur département pendant la guerre : il fut question des #camps_d’internement, des conditions dramatiques de l’assignation à résidence, de #massacres et d’engagement dans la résistance. Ces enquêtes font également état de l’#antitsiganisme de beaucoup de hauts fonctionnaires de l’époque : on y lit entre autres que les mesures anti-nomades de la guerre n’étaient pas indignes, mais qu’au contraire, elles avaient permis d’expérimenter des mesures de #socialisation.

Cette enquête de 1948 permet de comprendre que ces persécutions n’ont pas été « oubliées », mais qu’elles ont été délibérément occultées par l’administration française. Lorsqu’en 1949 est créée une Commission interministérielle pour l’étude des populations d’origine nomade, ses membres ne furent pas choisis au hasard : il s’agissait de personnes qui avaient déjà été en charge des questions relatives aux « Nomades », pour certaines d’entre elles pendant la guerre. Ainsi y retrouve-t-on #Georges_Romieu, ancien sous-directeur de la Police nationale à Vichy, qui avait été chargé de la création des camps d’internement pour « Nomades » en zone libre.

Il n’est donc pas très étonnant que les survivants des persécutions aient eu beaucoup de mal à faire reconnaître ce qu’ils venaient de subir. Alors même qu’en 1948, deux lois établirent le cadre juridique des #réparations des #préjudices subis par les victimes de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, le régime d’#indemnisation mis en place posa de nombreux problèmes aux victimes « nomades ». L’obstacle principal résidait dans le fait qu’une reconnaissance des persécutions des « Nomades » comme victimes de #persécutions_raciales remettait en cause l’idée que la catégorie « Nomade » n’était qu’un #classement_administratif des populations itinérantes et non une catégorie raciale discriminante. Le ministère des Anciens Combattants et Victimes de guerre ne voulait pas que l’internement des « Nomades » puisse être considéré comme un internement sur critères raciaux.

Ainsi, entre 1948 et 1955, les premiers dossiers de « Nomades » présentés au ministère des Anciens Combattants ne furent pas ceux des internés des camps français, encore moins des assignés à résidence, mais ceux des rescapés de la déportation afin d’obtenir le titre de « #déporté_politique ». Même pour ces derniers, l’administration manifesta un antitsiganisme explicite. Dans le dossier d’une femme rom française pourtant décédée dans les camps nazis, on peut y lire l’avis défavorable suivant : « Laissé à l’avis de la commission nationale, la matérialité de la déportation à Auschwitz n’étant pas établie. Les témoins (gitans comme le demandeur) signent tout ce qu’on leur présente. »

Dans les années 1960, quelques dizaines d’anciens internés « Nomades » demandèrent l’obtention du statut d’interné politique. Les premiers dossiers furent rejetés : l’administration refusait de reconnaître que les camps dans lesquels les « Nomades » avaient été internés étaient des camps d’internement. Pour ceux qui arrivaient à prouver qu’ils avaient bel et bien été internés dans des camps reconnus comme tels, par exemple celui de #Rivesaltes, l’administration rejetait leur demande en arguant que leur état de santé ne pouvait pas être imputé au mauvais traitement dans les camps mais à leur mauvaise hygiène de vie.

Devant ces refus systématiques de reconnaître la persécution des « Nomades », certaines personnes s’insurgèrent : les premiers concernés d’abord sans n’être aucunement entendus, puis des personnalités issues de l’action sociale comme, par exemple le #père_Fleury. Ce dernier avait été un témoin direct de l’internement et de la déportation depuis le camp de Poitiers où il avait exercé la fonction d’aumônier. Il contacta à plusieurs reprises le ministère des Anciens Combattants pour se plaindre du fait que les attestations qu’il rédigeait pour les anciens internés dans le but d’obtenir une reconnaissance n’étaient pas prises en compte. En 1963, les fonctionnaires de ce ministère lui répondirent que les demandes d’obtention du #statut d’interné politique faites par des « Nomades » n’aboutissaient pas faute d’archives et qu’il fallait qu’une enquête soit menée sur les conditions de vie des « Nomades » pendant la guerre.

Le père Fleury mit alors en place une équipe qui aurait dû recenser, partout en France, les victimes et les lieux de persécution. Mais le président de la Commission interministérielle pour l’étude des populations d’origine nomade, le conseiller d’État Pierre Join-Lambert s’opposa à l’entreprise. C’est à peu près au même moment que celui-ci répondit également à l’ambassadeur d’Allemagne fédéral qu’il n’y avait pas lieu d’indemniser les « #Tziganes_français ». La position de Join-Lambert était claire : aucune #persécution_raciale n’avait eu lieu en France où les « Tsiganes » étaient demeurés libres.

Cependant, à la fin des années 1960, devant la profusion des demandes d’obtention du statut d’internés politique de la part de « Nomades », le ministère des Anciens Combattants mena une enquête auprès des préfectures pour savoir si elles possédaient de la documentation sur « les conditions d’incarcération des Tsiganes et Gitans arrêtés sous l’Occupation ». Si certaines préfectures renvoyèrent des archives très parcellaires, certaines donnèrent sciemment de fausses informations. Le préfet du Loiret écrivit ainsi que, dans le camp de #Jargeau (l’un des plus grands camps d’internement de « Nomades » sur le territoire métropolitain), « les nomades internés pouvaient bénéficier d’une certaine liberté grâce à la clémence et à la compréhension de l’autorité administrative française ». En fait, les internés étaient forcés de travailler à l’extérieur des camps.

Premières #commémorations, premières recherches universitaires (1980-2000)

Pour répondre à l’occultation publique de leurs persécutions, des survivants roms, manouches, sinti, yéniches, gitans et voyageurs s’organisèrent pour rappeler leur histoire.

À partir des années 1980, plusieurs associations et collectifs d’internés se formèrent dans le but de faire reconnaître ce qui doit être nommé par son nom, un génocide : on peut citer l’association nationale des victimes et des familles de victimes tziganes de France, présidée par un ancien interné, #Jean-Louis_Bauer, ou encore le Comité de recherche pour la mémoire du génocide des Tsiganes français avec à sa tête #Pierre_Young. Quelques manifestations eurent lieu : on peut rappeler celle qui eut lieu sur le pont de l’Alma à Paris, en 1980, lors de laquelle plusieurs dizaines de Roms et survivants de la déportation manifestèrent avec des pancartes : « 47 membres de ma famille sont morts en camps nazis pour eux je porte le Z ». Mais aucune action n’eut l’ampleur de celles du mouvement rom et sinti allemand qui enchaîna, à la même époque, grèves de la faim et occupation des bâtiments pour demander la reconnaissance du génocide des Roms et des Sinti.

Cependant, la création de ces associations françaises coïncida avec le début des recherches historiques sur l’internement des « Nomades » en France, qui ne furent pas le fait d’historiens universitaires mais d’historiens locaux et d’étudiants. Jacques Sigot, instituteur à Montreuil-Bellay, se donna pour mission de faire l’histoire du camp de cette ville où avaient été internés plus de 1800 « Nomades » pendant la guerre. Rapidement, il fut rejoint dans ses recherches par d’anciens internés qui appartenaient, pour certains, à des associations mémorielles. Ainsi, paru en 1983, Un camp pour les Tsiganes et les autres… #Montreuil-Bellay 1940-1945. Plusieurs mémoires d’étudiants firent suite à cette publication pionnière : en 1984 sur le camp de #Saliers, en 1986 sur le camp de #Rennes et en 1988 sur le camp de #Jargeau.

Les premières #plaques_commémoratives furent posées dans un rapport d’opposition à des autorités locales peu soucieuses de réparation. En 1985, Jean-Louis Bauer, ancien interné « nomade » et #Félicia_Combaud, ancienne internée juive réunirent leurs forces pour que soit inauguré une #stèle sur le site du camp de #Poitiers où ils avaient été privés de liberté. En 1988, le même Jean-Louis Bauer accompagné de l’instituteur Jacques Sigot et d’autres survivants imposèrent à la mairie de Montreuil-Bellay une stèle sur le site du camp. En 1991, grâce aux efforts et à la persévérance de Jean-Louis Bauer et après quatre années d’opposition, le conseil municipal de la commune accepta la pose d’une plaque sur le site de l’ancien camp de Jargeau.

En 1992, sous cette pression, le Secrétariat d’État aux Anciens Combattants et Victimes de Guerre, le Secrétariat général de l’Intégration et la Fondation pour la Mémoire de la Déportation demandèrent à l’Institut d’histoire du temps présent (IHTP) de mener une recherche intitulée : « Les Tsiganes de France 1939-1946. Contrôle et exclusion ». L’historien Denis Peschanski en fut nommé le responsable scientifique et, sous sa direction parut deux ans plus tard un rapport de 120 pages.

Ce rapport apportait la preuve formelle de l’internement des « Nomades », mais certaines de ses conclusions étaient à l’opposé de ce dont témoignaient les survivants : il concluait en effet que la politique que les Allemands avaient mise en œuvre en France à l’égard des « Nomades » ne répondait pas à une volonté exterminatrice, en d’autres termes que les persécutions françaises n’étaient pas de nature génocidaire. De plus, le rapport ne dénombrait que 3 000 internés « tsiganes » dans les camps français : un chiffre bas qui ne manqua pas de rassurer les pouvoirs publics et de rendre encore les survivants encore plus méfiants vis-à-vis de l’histoire officielle.

Popularisation de l’histoire des « Nomades » et premières reconnaissances nationales (2000-2020)

Au début du XXIe siècle, les anciens internés « nomades » qui étaient adultes au moment de la guerre n’étaient plus très nombreux. La question de la préservation de leur mémoire se posait, alors même que les universitaires n’avaient pas cherché à collecter leurs paroles et les survivants n’avaient pas toujours trouvé les moyens de laisser de témoignages pérennes derrière eux.

Les initiatives visant à préserver cette mémoire furent d’abord le fait de rencontres entre journalistes, artistes et survivants : en 2001, le photographe Mathieu Pernot documenta l’internement dans le camp de Saliers ; en 2003 et 2009, Raphaël Pillosio réalisa deux documentaires sur la persécution des « Nomades » ; en 2011, la journaliste Isabelle Ligner publia le témoignage de #Raymond_Gurême, interné avec sa famille successivement dans les camps de #Darnétal et de #Linas-Monthléry, dont il s’évada avant de rejoindre la Résistance.

Les années 2000 popularisèrent l’histoire des « Nomades » à travers des bandes dessinées, des films ou, encore, des romans. Le 18 juillet 2010, Hubert Falco, secrétaire d’État à la Défense et aux Anciens Combattants, mentionna pour la première fois l’internement des « Tsiganes » dans un discours officiel. Cette reconnaissance partielle fut aussitôt anéantie par des propos du président de la République, Nicolas Sarkozy associant les « gens du voyage » et les « Roms » à des délinquants. L’été 2010 vient rappeler que la reconnaissance des persécutions passées était épineuse tant que des discriminations avaient encore cours.

En 2016, alors que la plupart des descendants d’internés et d’assignés à résidence « Nomades » étaient toujours soumis à un régime administratif de ségrégation, celui de la loi du 3 janvier 1969 les classant comme « gens du voyage », il fut décidé que le président de la République, François Hollande, se rendrait sur le site du camp de Montreuil-Bellay. Une cérémonie, qui eut lieu le 29 octobre 2016, fut préparée dans le plus grand secret : jusqu’au dernier moment, la présence du résident fut incertaine. Les survivants et leurs enfants invités étaient moins nombreux que les travailleurs sociaux et les membres d’associations ayant vocation à s’occuper des « gens du voyage » et aucun survivant ne témoigna. François Hollande déclara : « La République reconnaît la souffrance des nomades qui ont été internés et admet que sa #responsabilité est grande dans ce drame. » La souffrance ne fut pas qualifiée et la question du #génocide soigneusement évitée.

Le Conseil d’État rejeta en septembre 2020 la demande de deux associations de Voyageurs et de forains d’ouvrir le régime d’indemnisation des victimes de spoliation du fait des lois antisémites aux victimes des lois antitsiganes. Il déclara que les « Tsiganes » n’avaient pas « fait l’objet d’une politique d’extermination systématique ». Si le Parlement européen a reconnu le génocide des Roms et des Sinti en 2015 et a invité les États membres à faire de même, la France de 2024 n’a toujours pas suivi cette recommandation.
Résistances et liste mémorielle

À partir de 2014, les descendants de « Nomades » et des Roms et Sinti persécutés par les nazis et les régimes collaborateurs changèrent de stratégie : ce n’était pas seulement en tant que victimes qu’ils voulaient se faire reconnaître, mais aussi en tant que résistants. Le mouvement européen du 16 mai (#romaniresistance), rappelant l’insurrection des internés du Zigeunerlager [camp de Tsiganes] d’Auschwitz-Birkenau quand des SS vinrent pour les conduire aux chambres à gaz, se propagea. Il réunit tous les ans la jeunesse romani et voyageuse européenne à l’appel de l’ancien interné français Raymond Gurême : « Jamais à genoux, toujours debout ! »

La base de données « NOMadeS : Mur des noms des internés et assignés à résidence en tant que “Nomades” en France (1939-1946) » propose d’établir collaborativement une #liste aussi exhaustive que possible des internés et des assignés à résidence en tant que « Nomades » en France entre 1939 et 1946. Soutenue par plusieurs associations de descendants d’internés, elle servira d’appui à de nouvelles revendications mémorielles. Peut-être aussi à une demande de reconnaissance par la France du génocide des Manouches, des Roms, des Voyageurs, des Gitans, des Sinti et des Yéniches.

▻https://aoc.media/analyse/2024/12/18/le-deni-des-persecutions-genocidaires-des-nomades

#persécution #encampement #France #histoire #déni #internement #déportation #travail_forcé #reconnaissance

#python is Now the Most Popular Language on #github
▻https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2024/10/python-most-popular-language-on-github-2024

Python has overtaken JavaScript as the most-used language on GitHub, according to the code-hosting platform’s latest Octoverse report. The company attributes this momentum to a massive influx of “data science and machine learning on GitHub”, which has seen a 59% increase in the number of contributions to generative AI projects. With Python being heavily used across ML, data science, and related fields, the rise makes sense – it’s less that traditional software developers are switching to Python but more that developers working with AI-related projects are needing to use it. Plus, it’s good #News for open source, with GitHub reporting […] You’re reading Python is Now the Most Popular Language on GitHub, a blog post from OMG! Ubuntu. Do not reproduce elsewhere without (...)

#developer

Opengist
▻https://opengist.io

https://opengist.io/opengist-demo.png

Self-hosted #pastebin powered by #Git, open-source alternative to Github #Gist