Aside of GitLab, also consider Gitorious.
Gitorious may be nice, but it's really painful to install. It has so many components. Until it is available directly from a distribution (like Debian, since I know there's some ongoing efforts for that...), then I'd advise to stay away from it.
But then, the official repository does not carry lots of software that are prohibited by US laws... Well, not the entire world is subject to US laws.
Exactly what software are we talking about here? These days, there's pretty much everything you need from Debian main.
By forcing a name change
Nobody forced him to change the name. The DPL asked him to stop confusing his users into believing that donations would go to the Debian project. That's very different. And then he twisted it, and changed his domain name, so he wouldn't be bothered. I'm quite sure users will still get confused. Probably that's what he wants.
People use his services to solve a problem with the core Debian distro, and apparently he runs his service well enough that people continue to rely on his stuff. The only way to "get rid of him" is to offer a better solution to the underlying problem, not to play games with names.
Such a better solution (which would be: work more with the Debian Multimedia team, and make his repository not needed anymore, with everything directly available in Debian) have been attempted multiple times. Though he didn't seem to care doing that. Please don't blame Debian here.
I think the fight over the name, which caused the name change, was a mistake with consequences that could have been predicted.
Absolutely not. All Debian Developers were aware of what was going on, and none thought it would end this way.
You might be aware that there are other sites using the word "debian" in the URL. For example www.debian-administration.org. Though we don't care much about them. But here, we had someone working against Debian, and the way he acted shows the DPL did the right thing, especially seeing how much the owner of the site didn't care for its users.
Even if it's the fault of the sysadmins who messed with their systems, finding a non-intrusive way to help them from getting nailed is in everybody's long term interest (except maybe Microsoft or other non-Linux vendors... and even they want a health Internet). In the worst-case scenario that this domains gets acquired by bad people and users get burned by this, it will make UNIX/Deb look bad, cause harm to various individuals, and potentially even lead to more spam or malware.
Would you hold Microsoft liable for any software that a user downloads from any random site? I'm sure you wouldn't. So why in this case, Debian would be? This makes no sense.
I don't understand. "Package duplication" should not be a problem for any decent package manager, and it's not. Apt pinning allows you to choose which repository you get your packages from.
That would be right if the d-m.o repository was configured correctly (but it was not), and respecting the version numbering of Debian so you could upgrade correctly (but it did not).
And the second amounts to nothing more than weaselly lawyering up. Quick poll, everyone who loves FOSS at least in part to avoid that pro-corporate "protect our IP at all costs" bullshit, raise your hand? Yeah, thought so.
The issue wasn't only trademark. It was mainly that Debian users are fooled into believing that this was part of Debian, when it was not, and that this repository was breaking things badly.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.
