41 ms·

> As it continued to grow, I additionally trademarked the name “Gitea” in order to protect the project’s brand. (More on the trademark later.) ... > I have al

> As it continued to grow, I additionally trademarked the name “Gitea” in order to protect the project’s brand. (More on the trademark later.) ... > I have also transferred both the domains and trademarked name to Gitea Ltd. so that they are no longer personally owned by me and will remain indefinitely with the Gitea project. (no further mention of trademarks) So, I think the take away here is as a response to the core demands of the 'open letter' being: - A non-profit organisation owned by the Gitea community is created. - The Gitea trademark and domains are transferred to the non-profit. - The name of the company is changed to avoid any confusion with the non-profit. The answer is bluntly; no. With regard to the concerns raised about use use of a DAO, the response is (as previously): > One of the options we have been considering includes a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). ... The DAO management model would also not mean the creation of a gitcoin or crypto token. So, basically no acknowledgement that using a DAO is fundamentally indistinguishable from using crypto. A pretty ho-hum response, in my personal opinion. Well, it is what it is.

zitterbewegung 4y ago
Why use the term DAO when it is essentially everyone has a vote ? I would think a COOp would be a better choice of words. Using a DAO would give negative connotations when you aren’t issuing a token .
- fabrice_d 4y ago
  It's not "everyone has a vote". Some have more voting powers than others: "provides contributors with greater participation to have more votes" Typically you can expect Gitea Ltd. employees to have greater participation.
dachary 4y ago
> The answer is bluntly; no. I share the same conclusion. It is time to fork.
- aliqot 4y ago
  > time to fork. Knew you'd come around. Now I just need Rapnie from the other day to put their blessing on it and we can call this a done deal.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jimlongton 4y ago
I recently learned what a DAO is and I simply don't understand what purpose a "decentralized autonomous organization" could serve here. What am I missing? Python, FreeBSD, Debian etc etc have foundations/boards, hold elections and make decisions without anything so complex.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  A DAO is much more like a cooperative. The complexity comes from the value distribution and vote models. That said, you don't need crypto for that, just well made processes.
  - isodev 4y ago
    It's really a shame that an entire category of software and organizational practices have been smeared because of "the crypto phenomenon".
    - theptip 4y ago
      Welcome to the trough of disillusionment. It will pass.
    - halostatue 4y ago
      "Smart contracts" are a defining feature of DAOs. "Smart contracts" are not something that are offered outside of cryptocurrency / blockchain platforms. No one has found a viable use for blockchains that cannot be better solved in other means except as massive vehicles for scams. Any organization that tries to implement a DAO / smart contract system for governance is asking for trouble, because they’re legally unsound and untested. As far as organizational structures are concerned, there are plenty of viable structures and legal sorts of entities that can be used. (Gitea Ltd might be able to fix a lot of the goodwill issues by switching to a B corp structure or even to a legal cooperative structure.)
  - halostatue 4y ago
    Then just make a cooperative organization. There are legal means for doing so in most jurisdictions. There’s absolutely no need to use a term that makes no sense without cryptoscams and hackable "smart" contracts.
fabrice_d 4y ago
"Gitea Ltd. will be open to building special versions for special clients and will contribute any features back to the main repository when possible" pretty much means that they won't contribute back everything. That's what you get when contributing to MIT licensed code.
- jolheiser 4y ago
  The way I read it is "company x has some internal system that they want to integrate with gitea" Where it may not make sense to contribute it back.
- Kiro 4y ago
  You make it sound like people contributing to MIT licensed code are oblivious to that. I'm perfectly fine with anyone doing whatever they want or I wouldn't have chosen MIT. They don't owe me anything.
  - fabrice_d 4y ago
    Fair enough. The initial reaction to the company creation still makes me think that in this case, some community contributors feel like they got the short end of the stick. Clearly not the sketchiest part of these events, but maybe food for thought when considering contributing to a project that may go commercial at some point.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      It can be taken as complaining but I see it as they are just trying the civil communication route before doing something like a gpl fork that's all. It's the opposite of unreasonable or bad behavior.
- nwellnhof 4y ago
  You can do the same thing with GPL-licensed code. Only the recipient of GPL-ed code has a right to get the source code, not the public at large. Unless the recipient wants to redistribute the code, Copyleft makes little difference.

zitterbewegung 4y ago

Why use the term DAO when it is essentially everyone has a vote ? I would think a COOp would be a better choice of words. Using a DAO would give negative connotations when you aren’t issuing a token .

fabrice_d 4y ago
It's not "everyone has a vote". Some have more voting powers than others: "provides contributors with greater participation to have more votes" Typically you can expect Gitea Ltd. employees to have greater participation.

dachary 4y ago

> The answer is bluntly; no. I share the same conclusion. It is time to fork.

aliqot 4y ago
> time to fork. Knew you'd come around. Now I just need Rapnie from the other day to put their blessing on it and we can call this a done deal.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jimlongton 4y ago

I recently learned what a DAO is and I simply don't understand what purpose a "decentralized autonomous organization" could serve here. What am I missing? Python, FreeBSD, Debian etc etc have foundations/boards, hold elections and make decisions without anything so complex.

sirsinsalot 4y ago
A DAO is much more like a cooperative. The complexity comes from the value distribution and vote models. That said, you don't need crypto for that, just well made processes.
- isodev 4y ago
  It's really a shame that an entire category of software and organizational practices have been smeared because of "the crypto phenomenon".
  - theptip 4y ago
    Welcome to the trough of disillusionment. It will pass.
  - halostatue 4y ago
    "Smart contracts" are a defining feature of DAOs. "Smart contracts" are not something that are offered outside of cryptocurrency / blockchain platforms. No one has found a viable use for blockchains that cannot be better solved in other means except as massive vehicles for scams. Any organization that tries to implement a DAO / smart contract system for governance is asking for trouble, because they’re legally unsound and untested. As far as organizational structures are concerned, there are plenty of viable structures and legal sorts of entities that can be used. (Gitea Ltd might be able to fix a lot of the goodwill issues by switching to a B corp structure or even to a legal cooperative structure.)
- halostatue 4y ago
  Then just make a cooperative organization. There are legal means for doing so in most jurisdictions. There’s absolutely no need to use a term that makes no sense without cryptoscams and hackable "smart" contracts.

fabrice_d 4y ago

"Gitea Ltd. will be open to building special versions for special clients and will contribute any features back to the main repository when possible" pretty much means that they won't contribute back everything. That's what you get when contributing to MIT licensed code.

jolheiser 4y ago
The way I read it is "company x has some internal system that they want to integrate with gitea" Where it may not make sense to contribute it back.
Kiro 4y ago
You make it sound like people contributing to MIT licensed code are oblivious to that. I'm perfectly fine with anyone doing whatever they want or I wouldn't have chosen MIT. They don't owe me anything.
- fabrice_d 4y ago
  Fair enough. The initial reaction to the company creation still makes me think that in this case, some community contributors feel like they got the short end of the stick. Clearly not the sketchiest part of these events, but maybe food for thought when considering contributing to a project that may go commercial at some point.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    It can be taken as complaining but I see it as they are just trying the civil communication route before doing something like a gpl fork that's all. It's the opposite of unreasonable or bad behavior.
nwellnhof 4y ago
You can do the same thing with GPL-licensed code. Only the recipient of GPL-ed code has a right to get the source code, not the public at large. Unless the recipient wants to redistribute the code, Copyleft makes little difference.