3 ms·

> If you are a company and rely on Gitea, especially for critical operations, please get in touch as we are now able to offer: > [...] > An enhanced enterpris

> If you are a company and rely on Gitea, especially for critical operations, please get in touch as we are now able to offer: > [...] > An enhanced enterprise version It's sad to see Gitea not receiving enough donations/funding to stay afloat, and I obviously can't fault them for taking the necessary steps to generate revenue, but it's also sad to see it eventually going open-core. (Which is how I read the announcement)

dachary 4y ago
This announcement took the entire Gitea community by surprise, including volunteer developers contributing code daily to the project. Gitea turned from being a community led democratic project to a company that owns the domains and the trademark, overnight. This is an even bigger problem than going open core and is begging for a fork to happen.
- MaxBarraclough 4y ago
  Great points. I agree there will be a backlash from contributors. As far as I can tell they don't ask contributors to hand over copyrights, but they use the permissive MIT-style licence which permits the creation of non-Free forks. Drew DeVault, of SourceHut fame, has written on this topic. [0][1] Drew's opinion is that he probably couldn't easily turn SourceHut to the 'open core' model even if he wanted to, on account of its use of AGPL-licensed code from contributors (who retain the copyrights). [0] https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-thereof/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31963559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31963559
  - throwaccount12 4y ago
    AGPL has a bad reputation because it has been weaponized against the community from companies like Elastic.
    - MaxBarraclough 4y ago
      They moved from the Apache Licence 2.0 to a non-Free licence, I don't think they ever used the AGPL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticsearch#Licensing_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticsearch#Licensing_change...
kdumont 4y ago
As far as I've seen it's actually the opposite. Gitea has been growing in support and popularity, and as such, it needed to put some legal structure in place to deal with increased income and distribution of funds so that it's not abused. That is, I BELIEVE, the intention with the announcement and structural changes. As a relatively significant commercial backer of both bounties and Open Collective, I was as surprised as everyone to see the announcement. If my assumptions are correct, I completely agree with the decision. I want developers who contribute to gitea to benefit from the software they are building and think there is enormous potential for everyone to share in the upside. It's an exciting, new junction for the project. I think we are a little bit in the dark at the moment and I'm pushing for better communication.
- joepie91_ 4y ago
  > Gitea has been growing in support and popularity, and as such, it needed to put some legal structure in place to deal with increased income and distribution of funds so that it's not abused. None of that requires turning it from an open-source into an open-core project.

dachary 4y ago

This announcement took the entire Gitea community by surprise, including volunteer developers contributing code daily to the project. Gitea turned from being a community led democratic project to a company that owns the domains and the trademark, overnight. This is an even bigger problem than going open core and is begging for a fork to happen.

MaxBarraclough 4y ago
Great points. I agree there will be a backlash from contributors. As far as I can tell they don't ask contributors to hand over copyrights, but they use the permissive MIT-style licence which permits the creation of non-Free forks. Drew DeVault, of SourceHut fame, has written on this topic. [0][1] Drew's opinion is that he probably couldn't easily turn SourceHut to the 'open core' model even if he wanted to, on account of its use of AGPL-licensed code from contributors (who retain the copyrights). [0] https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-thereof/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31963559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31963559
- throwaccount12 4y ago
  AGPL has a bad reputation because it has been weaponized against the community from companies like Elastic.
  - MaxBarraclough 4y ago
    They moved from the Apache Licence 2.0 to a non-Free licence, I don't think they ever used the AGPL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticsearch#Licensing_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticsearch#Licensing_change...

kdumont 4y ago

As far as I've seen it's actually the opposite. Gitea has been growing in support and popularity, and as such, it needed to put some legal structure in place to deal with increased income and distribution of funds so that it's not abused. That is, I BELIEVE, the intention with the announcement and structural changes. As a relatively significant commercial backer of both bounties and Open Collective, I was as surprised as everyone to see the announcement. If my assumptions are correct, I completely agree with the decision. I want developers who contribute to gitea to benefit from the software they are building and think there is enormous potential for everyone to share in the upside. It's an exciting, new junction for the project. I think we are a little bit in the dark at the moment and I'm pushing for better communication.

joepie91_ 4y ago
> Gitea has been growing in support and popularity, and as such, it needed to put some legal structure in place to deal with increased income and distribution of funds so that it's not abused. None of that requires turning it from an open-source into an open-core project.