Ok folks.
-
Daniel, pined-lizard editionreplied to Eamon on last edited by
@eamon Gitea? Maintainers seem like a sensible lot and its easy to host. I only use it as a nice way to backup my code that isn't really public ready (or just outright private repos)
-
Amin Hollon šŗšøš²š¾š®š³š¦š«replied to Daniel on last edited by
-
mirabilosreplied to Amin Hollon šŗšøš²š¾š®š³š¦š« last edited by
@amin @daniel @eamon in the light of https://lwn.net/Articles/987170/ you may very well wish to reconsider that.
-
@mirabilos @amin @daniel @eamon Oh my. That comment keeps coming back on every single LWN article about Forgejo, and 99% of it is bullshit. Pretty much the same comment gets posted on every LWN article about Forgejo. Someone seems to have a beef with us, it looks like.
That copy pasta would be reason alone for me to switch from Gitea to Forgejo.
FTR, I am contracted by Codeberg to work on Forgejo, and I was the one who revived the push for copyleft code entering the codebase. While my code wasn't the first copyleft to enter Forgejo, I submitted the first contribution under a non-MIT license (EUPL, but was relicensed to MIT before merging, because I needed it to get merged before the EUPL/AGPL/GPL discussion came to a conclusion). The entire premise that Dachary is behind the copylefting is complete and utter bullshit, as is the rest of the comment.
-
-
@mirabilos @amin @eamon @daniel We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see GPL as a move away from software freedom.
Even if you're not a fan of the GPL (neither am I, I'm more of an EUPL person nowadays), do consider that Gitea Enterprise Edition exists, and has closed source components, while Forgejo remains fully free software. I'd like to think that a GPL'd, but fully free software is closer to software freedom than open core.
-
-
@mirabilos @daniel @amin @eamon But that did not happen. There is no relicensing involved. It's merely a combination of MIT + GPL, which ends up being GPL in practice.
The code that was MIT, remains MIT. Future contributions under MIT are also accepted.
The only thing that happened is that GPL code was merged, which rendered the whole body of work GPL. Individual parts retain their own license.
-
-
@mirabilos @eamon @amin @daniel TBH, the Forgejo blog post does not make this exactly clear either, so I'm not faulting LWN there.