3 ms·

> there are a few corporations (with revenues that are greater than some countries GDP) are building on Gitea for core products without even contributing back e

> there are a few corporations (with revenues that are greater than some countries GDP) are building on Gitea for core products without even contributing back enhancements That's exactly what you get when you release Gitea under MIT. What they are looking for is AGPL.

Aachen 4y ago
Yeah I was fully expecting a licence change with that preamble. And then they mention DAO ._. GPL scares people for stupid reasons (stupid from my fanatical perspective that if you use open source software, of course your derivatives ought to be open as well), Gitea honestly might be so popular because it had a more free license than GPL. Doesn't mean I'm sad to see they're not even trying to make these changes be contributed back going forward.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > Gitea honestly might be so popular because it had a more free license than GPL Citation needed.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    Citation for a hunch is pretty hard to give
  - rapnie 4y ago
    > more free That is in the eye of the beholder. Phrasing as 'more permissive' is more accurate.
    - Aachen 4y ago
      To me those are synonyms, but I'm not a native speaker. When you're allowed to do more things, such as taking open source code and using it without ever contributing anything back even if you distribute compiled versions of these people's work for exorbitant fees, aren't you more "free" to do what you want than if this were restricted in any way? I'm not saying I morally agree with it, but that's what I understand the word to mean.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        > aren't you more "free"? More freedom for one organization often translates into less freedom for end users. That's why GPLv3 has explicit clauses against proprietization, tivoization and patenting. Otherwise the freedom goes from developers to the first big company and stops there. End users and other developers get closed/patented code or SaaS.
      - sangnoir 4y ago
        Whose freedom you're talking about matters: and your perspective focuses on developer freedom. Which is the freer society: one where loud, all-night music in residential areas is permitted with no consequences, or one with restrictions on noise disturbances? Your definition supports the idea that late-night-parties has more freedoms, and I disagree with that. Hence the "eye of the beholder" thing applies. My own subjective perspective is rather utilitarian: there are more users thsn developers (as developers are also users), hence, user freedom is more valuable than developer freedom, and it is worth restricting some developer freedoms to that end.
techknowlogick 4y ago
Hi, I'm the author of the blog post. Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry about being unclear with that part. The issue is less them using the project, but more creating a support burden by sneaking into community forums and hiding their affiliation. I'd much rather donate my time to homelabbers, and people not being paid an obscene amount of money who in theory should be able to figure it out themselves.

Aachen 4y ago

Yeah I was fully expecting a licence change with that preamble. And then they mention DAO ._. GPL scares people for stupid reasons (stupid from my fanatical perspective that if you use open source software, of course your derivatives ought to be open as well), Gitea honestly might be so popular because it had a more free license than GPL. Doesn't mean I'm sad to see they're not even trying to make these changes be contributed back going forward.

goodpoint 4y ago
> Gitea honestly might be so popular because it had a more free license than GPL Citation needed.
- Aachen 4y ago
  Citation for a hunch is pretty hard to give
- rapnie 4y ago
  > more free That is in the eye of the beholder. Phrasing as 'more permissive' is more accurate.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    To me those are synonyms, but I'm not a native speaker. When you're allowed to do more things, such as taking open source code and using it without ever contributing anything back even if you distribute compiled versions of these people's work for exorbitant fees, aren't you more "free" to do what you want than if this were restricted in any way? I'm not saying I morally agree with it, but that's what I understand the word to mean.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      > aren't you more "free"? More freedom for one organization often translates into less freedom for end users. That's why GPLv3 has explicit clauses against proprietization, tivoization and patenting. Otherwise the freedom goes from developers to the first big company and stops there. End users and other developers get closed/patented code or SaaS.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Whose freedom you're talking about matters: and your perspective focuses on developer freedom. Which is the freer society: one where loud, all-night music in residential areas is permitted with no consequences, or one with restrictions on noise disturbances? Your definition supports the idea that late-night-parties has more freedoms, and I disagree with that. Hence the "eye of the beholder" thing applies. My own subjective perspective is rather utilitarian: there are more users thsn developers (as developers are also users), hence, user freedom is more valuable than developer freedom, and it is worth restricting some developer freedoms to that end.

techknowlogick 4y ago

Hi, I'm the author of the blog post. Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry about being unclear with that part. The issue is less them using the project, but more creating a support burden by sneaking into community forums and hiding their affiliation. I'd much rather donate my time to homelabbers, and people not being paid an obscene amount of money who in theory should be able to figure it out themselves.