• Neshura@bookwormstory.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ll try to summarize:

    • Gitea is managed by a For-Profit that apparently popped out of nowhere -> profit motive conflicts directly with FOSS and since the corp isn’t well known it must be assumed acquisition was solely to make money
    • Gitea now requires Copyright attribution, meaning if you push code to Gitea in an existing file it ain’t your code anymore -> omega level oof for a FOSS project because this essentially kills any upstream contributing (as seen by Forgejo deciding to stop their contributions)
    • This Cloud Service being offered when Self-Hosting Gitea is really easy, again -> profit motive conflicts with FOSS but now on steroids because a “core” feature of their service will limit their ability to make more money
    • Gooey0210@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for explaining it, because it’s a long and complex story I didn’t want to type 😅

      Also, probably the most touching point is how this happened. Gitea was a community project, and they were electing a leader every year or so, and giving them all the passwords (and it seems like the rights for the project, although it’s not stated anywhere) This “out-of-nowhere” company is just one the temporary presidents that hijacked all the domains, repos, etc. Registered a for-profit company and transfered everything there

      The community itself wrote an open letter wanting explanations And at the end they forked gitea into forgejo

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a very selective truth way of telling the story. While what you wrote is technically correct, the “temporary president” in question is one of the founders and has been reelected for the position every time. He also did it together with some other core contributors, so while I agree that this was communicated incredibly poorly with the wider community, this wasn’t a hostile takeover at all.