3 ms·
> I think it was that an American company took it over, No, Gitea Ltd is a new _Hong Kong_ for-profit company. No American companies are involved in any of thi
by bityard 4y ago
> I think it was that an American company took it over,
No, Gitea Ltd is a new _Hong Kong_ for-profit company. No American companies are involved in any of this whatsoever.
The Gitea head honcho claims to be in Shanghai, China: https://gitea.com/lunny https://gitea.com/lunny
> not that a company took it over.
No, the Forgejo folks were angry that the previously community-run project was taken into ownership of a for-profit company, without any notice, and against previous promises: https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social
> They didn't AGPL forego
Uh, they CAN'T relicense it to AGPL or anything else. The Gitea authors and contributors still hold the copyright on the code, which is MIT-licensed.
- joencott 4y agoForgejo did relicense, there was a democratic vote and the it was agreed to finally relicense to a license that respects user's freedoms
- djha-skin 4y agoVery cool if true, but it appears they haven't done it yet: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/LICENSE https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/LICE... Could someone post a link to the decision?
- jonas-w 4y agohttps://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/183 https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/183 I think, this seems to be the discussion everyone is talking about
- remram 4y agoYou can license your fork under a different compatible license (which is most other licenses, in the case of MIT). They can't prevent people from using the versions that were already released under MIT though (and continue being released under MIT by Gitea).