Thank you, @forgejo for becoming Free Software with commit https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/94631ccef67eb385f416feb9017214f3da99ab3a that switches the project from MIT license to GPL V3 or later!
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:wrote last edited by [email protected]
Thank you, @forgejo for becoming even more Free Software with commit https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/94631ccef67eb385f416feb9017214f3da99ab3a that switches the project from MIT license to GPL V3 or later!
"Forgejo is a self-hosted lightweight software forge.
Easy to install and low maintenance, it just does the job."Blog entry:
https://forgejo.org/2024-08-gpl/Main page:
https://forgejo.orgImportant: this change will happen with the release of Forgejo 9.0. Current versions 8.x and 7.x will remain under MIT license.
-
mariusreplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer I had no idea that software under MIT was considered not to be Free Software. I always thought about the problem like the more permissive the license the "more free" it is, as opposed to ones like GPL that have additional restrictions... Am I wrong?
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to marius last edited by [email protected]
@mariusor No. Both concepts of freedom can co-exist at the same time, IMHO and experience. In Free Software (GPL, Copyleft) we ensure freedom by having clear rules. The permissive camp (MIT, BSD etc) sees those rules as restrictions on their definition of freedom. Both sides have good arguments for their approach. So it's up to you to decide if you want to focus on one side or accept that both exist for good reasons @forgejo
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by [email protected]
@mariusor It's a never ending holy war for some. While I definitely favour the Copyleft/GPL approach, I also have no problems accepting and respecting the choices of the permissive side. I grew out of the fundamentalist discussions many years ago I look at the health and inclusivity of a community for a given project more than I care about the license. As long as the license is OSI (Open Source Initiative) approved, of course @forgejo
-
Joseph Nuthalapati :fbx:replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer
Is there a reason why they are not using AGPLv3+ instead of GPLv3+?It is software served over a network.
@forgejo -
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Joseph Nuthalapati :fbx: last edited by
@njoseph Yes, you can read all about that in the (ongoing) discussion at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/192 It's a complex issue and there is no perfect solution that fits everything and everyone. As @forgejo states in their blog post, this is one step, not the end of the road.
-
david_chisnallreplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer @forgejo The MIT license is a FSF-approved Free Software license. This is not making it become Free Software, this is making it Free Software under a different license.
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to david_chisnall last edited by
@david_chisnall Accepted. I have updated the toot by adding "even more" to remove the ambiguity that you pointed out but wasn't intended from my side. @forgejo
-
Fabio Valentinireplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer I'm curious - have all previous contributors signed off on the license change? or is it going to be "GPL 3.0 for new contributions but old code remains MIT licensed"? (the linked commit makes it look like MIT is just gone though)
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Fabio Valentini last edited by
@decathorpe For a switch from a permissive to a copyleft (or a commercial) license you don't need approval from the contributors.