5 ms·

(I'm not part of the Gitea community, just a casual user of gitea since the gogs days, so please take this for what it's worth -) I don't understand why Forges

(I'm not part of the Gitea community, just a casual user of gitea since the gogs days, so please take this for what it's worth -) I don't understand why Forges (and what feels like a large part of the free software community) is against corporate sponsorship. The stated goal of '"ensuring the long term success of the project" by allowing companies "unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly ' seems extremely reasonable to a passerby and didn't seem to come with any strings attached, so why the knee jerk reaction of forking the project?

timetraveller26 3y ago
From the article: > Originally the project's governance, spelled out in an earlier version of its CONTRIBUTING.md file, specified the project would have three "owners" responsible for keeping development ""healthy"". The actual responsibilities and rights of the owners were vague, but they were to be elected yearly by Gitea's maintainers ""who decide with a simple voting model which contributions get accepted and who will play the owner role"". > That community of maintainers did not get a vote when Gitea's domain and trademarks were quietly transferred by two of Gitea's "owners" (Lunny Xiao and Matti Ranta) to a for-profit business called Gitea Ltd. The announcement said this was to meet the goal of ""ensuring the long term success of the project"" by allowing companies ""unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution"" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly.
KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
You might want to take a look at this thread. It's particularly spicy. Seems like the Forgejo founder is being disingenuous (though the Gitea founders are not much better either). Everybody is just in it for the money. https://lwn.net/Articles/963608/ https://lwn.net/Articles/963608/

timetraveller26 3y ago

From the article: > Originally the project's governance, spelled out in an earlier version of its CONTRIBUTING.md file, specified the project would have three "owners" responsible for keeping development ""healthy"". The actual responsibilities and rights of the owners were vague, but they were to be elected yearly by Gitea's maintainers ""who decide with a simple voting model which contributions get accepted and who will play the owner role"". > That community of maintainers did not get a vote when Gitea's domain and trademarks were quietly transferred by two of Gitea's "owners" (Lunny Xiao and Matti Ranta) to a for-profit business called Gitea Ltd. The announcement said this was to meet the goal of ""ensuring the long term success of the project"" by allowing companies ""unable to contribute back to open source via sponsorship or code contribution"" to support Gitea in the form of paying Gitea Ltd directly.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

You might want to take a look at this thread. It's particularly spicy. Seems like the Forgejo founder is being disingenuous (though the Gitea founders are not much better either). Everybody is just in it for the money. https://lwn.net/Articles/963608/ https://lwn.net/Articles/963608/