Open source sustainment and the future of Gitea
blog.gitea.io
blog.gitea.io
Gitea itself started as a fork of Gogs, it wouldn't be too surprising to see it fork again if they start being creative with the brand.
It's mostly a term to describe codified governance/community systems. There may be point systems implemented via crypto tokens, but in the vast majority of cases those would be better implemented on centralized ledgers since there's someone with centralized control over either the token issuance, the communication channels, or other essential resources.
If they were developed now, Stack Overflow and Wikipedia would be considered DAOs.
I'm unable to find an actual example of anything calling itself a DAO which doesn't also play with cryptocurrency tokens, so I'm pretty sure the term isn't used outside of that fanbase.
ducks
Wikipedia is run as a not-for-profit Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation). It doesn't seem anything like DAO either. Again, unless you mean the community of contributors to Wikipedia, and that also is extremely centralized to Wikipedia servers and doesn't have anything resembling "autonomous", not even something resembling Stack Overflow's game mechanics.
The "autonomous" in DAO still only means "smart contracts" and no one is using DAO as a term for traditional corporate structures other than those intentionally confused by or wishing to confuse what "autonomous" means in the acronym.
Or well.. DAO. Likely means blockchain bs.
Also in their footer:
> Sponsored by INBlockchain, Equinix Metal, Two Sigma, SoEBeS, Allspice, Towhee, Hostea, Jeff Moe, and all of our backers on Open Collective.
Meanwhile there are existing open-source foundations and conservancies that operate just fine as traditional (not-for-profit) corporations and no need for a DAO or any cryptocurrencies for community governance.
We were migrating from GitLab, so I considered to install Gogs, we decided to go with GitHub unfortunately.
I don't think this announcement was handled particularly well, but nonetheless, I think it's an important development for gitea to grow and become sustainable.
Specifically, Gitea is in desperate need of full-time maintainers (and probably a part-time project manager), and I see this as an essential step to creating the necessary governance for that.
I remain cautiously optimistic and would encourage everyone who is passionate about the project to raise their concerns and wishes in a constructive way. Another fork would be a disaster for the entire ecosystem and I think should only happen if there really are SIGNIFICANTLY diverging interests in the project.
I also haven't heard anything in the gitea threads about crypto, so I think they're just referring to bounties and other distributed payments.
That's not something a serious, registered company would risk given known sanctions against Iran. A random scam dao maybe doesn't care, but I suspect gitea does.
The fun part is: "CFTC’s order first finds that virtual currencies traded on the bZx Protocol, including ETH and DAI, are “commodities” under the CEA.", which is close to "It's cute you set up your daos and automated protocols, but legally that's irrelevant."
Regarding ignoring the identity: "The order further finds that the Ooki DAO failed to adopt a customer identification program, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act and the Commission regulations promulgated thereunder."
Over time I realized: I don’t need to be able to merge pull requests and do code reviews in a web interface. Nowadays I’m invested in a plain Git/SSH setup with cgit as a web frontend and email patches.
It never breaks, is as secure as your server is and does everything you usually need, including user permissions.
The `git am`-based workflow is less than popular outside of FreeBSD, Linux kernel development and SourceHut though. Depending on your environment, if used in a work setting, your colleagues may balk.
That being said and given the existing enterprise users of Gitea, it’s entirely natural to eventually offer solutions tailored to their use, like SSO. I wish them the best for building towards a sustainable future while staying true to their core values.
I can understand some folks not wanting to do initial setup and sourcehut already provides a nice web interface for it. But for actually contributing stuff emails are pretty unbeatable IMO.
https://herrbischoff.com/2021/10/how-to-install-cgit-with-gi...
I’ve also tripped over something regarding “master” and “main” branches that’s easily fixed:
https://herrbischoff.com/2022/05/cgit-missing-idle-column-on...
If you want it even simpler, just run
mkdir repo.git && cd repo.git
git init —bare
git clone user@server:/path/to/repo.gitGiven all users can share a user account on a server, it will behave exactly like you expect it to. Again, that's a core Git feature. Additionally, AFAIK Git has its own locking management. Also look up the `--shared` flag. `man git-init` is very helpful.
> [...]
> An enhanced enterprise version
It's sad to see Gitea not receiving enough donations/funding to stay afloat, and I obviously can't fault them for taking the necessary steps to generate revenue, but it's also sad to see it eventually going open-core.
(Which is how I read the announcement)
This is an even bigger problem than going open core and is begging for a fork to happen.
As far as I can tell they don't ask contributors to hand over copyrights, but they use the permissive MIT-style licence which permits the creation of non-Free forks.
Drew DeVault, of SourceHut fame, has written on this topic. [0][1] Drew's opinion is that he probably couldn't easily turn SourceHut to the 'open core' model even if he wanted to, on account of its use of AGPL-licensed code from contributors (who retain the copyrights).
[0] https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticsearch#Licensing_change...
That is, I BELIEVE, the intention with the announcement and structural changes. As a relatively significant commercial backer of both bounties and Open Collective, I was as surprised as everyone to see the announcement. If my assumptions are correct, I completely agree with the decision. I want developers who contribute to gitea to benefit from the software they are building and think there is enormous potential for everyone to share in the upside.
It's an exciting, new junction for the project. I think we are a little bit in the dark at the moment and I'm pushing for better communication.
None of that requires turning it from an open-source into an open-core project.
I have spent much of today trying to clear things up, and will be writing a follow up to the post.
I see some concern around the mention of a DAO, I tried to get across in the blog post that community is incredibly important, and so I mentioned it as a possible way to ensure community governance, not to create a cryptocurrency and sell that. I mentioned it to be entirely transparent that it was a way that we are possibly investigating to make sure community is still involved.
Thanks to our paying clients, the company has been able to hire some maintainers, and contribute back the changes we've made back to the project so everyone can benefit. We are also looking into establishing a fund to not only pay contributors, but also projects we rely on.
> To preserve the community aspect of Gitea we are experimenting with creating a decentralized autonomous organization where contributors would receive benefits based on their participation such as from code, documentation, translations, and perhaps even assisting individual community members with support questions.
This is a DAO where you earn scrip through a gamified version of FOSS development. This has nothing to do with "community" (which is a word I'm pretty sick of hearing coming from the mouths of software devs and tech companies).
I work daily on the Gitea codebase as part of my efforts to further forge federation in forgefriends and did not get any advance warning, just as most volunteer contributors.
The main developer of Robot Framework and few companies using RF heavily understood that something had to be done, so Robot Framework Foundation(2) was formed. RF Foundation has membership fees, it arranges RF conferences etc. which allows RF Foundation to pay for the development of RF.
I think that is a really good way to fund OSS development. Those companies which benefit the most from it, pay membership fees and gets to vote on the direction of the product.
(1) https://robotframework.org/ (2) https://robotframework.org/foundation/
> We are hosting 42010 repositories, created and maintained by 34042 users. Compared to one month ago, this is an organic growth rate of +3372 repositories (+8.7% month-over-month) and +2271 users (+7.1%).
And further on:
> Codeberg e.V. has 246 members in total, these are 175 members with active voting rights and 69 supporting members, and 2 honorary members.
[1] https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-hackathon-tra...
> Membership fees are debited by means of SEPA direct debit. Please email to contact@codeberg.org for other transfer methods.
Almost certainly still cheaper than literally any alternative, though, since you need that bank account anyway and I will get very much doubt they'd take as big a cut as the paypal mafia.
Only downside of SEPA is that it is a lot less common outside EU/Europe and then more expensive and instant payment is not really possible (there are some vendors offering solutions ...) but that doesn't seem to be their aim. (Would be: "click here to get a license for a commercial download")
SEPA stands for "Single Euro Payments Area" and was build for the EU/Europe, I don't think it's available outside of Europe.
I should ask my boss how we get money from customers in other countries. As far as I knew we just give them our IBAN, chamber of commerce number for tax reasons, and it just appears in our account.
-- IBAN Wikipedia [0]
It’s not that widespread. For international payments, you can do international bank transfers which have fees associated with them which can be shared or put on one side of the transaction only. It’s often easier and cheaper to use a 3rd-party provider like XE or TransferWise.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Num...
Debit cards are effectively the same as credit cards for this purpose, paying for things online. Many (if not most) banks and credit unions in the USA will issue you a free debit card upon opening an account, some without even needing to put any money into the account.
And transferring money to random bank accounts outside of the country is rather messy in US. Some banks won't even let you do it online.
Their fork lives here: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/gitea
I run it together with ZFS and SQLite. This enables atomic snapshot of both the database and git repository. And this is of course replicated to another system. SQLite is plenty fast, people should avoid more complex solutions using PostgreSQL or MySQL. I've also configured SSO with Azure Active Directory which everyone with mail from Microsoft has access for free.
For the past few years I've completed a few dozen upgrades, only 2 times it has broken. One was a new configuration property I needed to add, and one was that I upgraded GoLang a bit too early and Gitea didn't support it. Compared to many other open source projects, Gitea is a joy to use and run. And I hope it will stay like this for another 10 years.
One thing is for certain: Gitea is no longer what it was a few days ago and there is no telling what the next 10 years have in store.
The blog post says maintainers have been hired, as well as the Blender blog post is months old, seems like this has been public knowledge for a while, but that it is just formally being announced now.
Edit: seems I am getting downvoted, but I searched dachary who has a financial interest in Gitea, and has posted about the company in the past, so he clearly has known about this for a while.
I wonder why he happens to not mention a conflict.
There was no mention of this anywhere prior to the blog post, including in private Discord channels. It has _not_ been public knowledge for a while.
What you said is false. I suspect that is why you're getting downvoted.
It's not, you can confirm what I said. Look at the link in the blog post that points to public mention of it months ago, as well as the user I replied to posts about the company to his personal site with excepts from the public matrix channel.
I'm active in open source and lots of chat happens in matrix, maybe your coworker missed it?
By not mentioning this major conflict brings your motives into suspicion.
I think there's an open source trap where successful projects see their adoption numbers, and billion-dollar companies using their projects and think "We're leaving money on the table" (which IMO is the whole point of libre software).
Unfortunately, this is the path to weird software licenses, open-core / community-edition product splits and a whole host that makes the software less useful to me as an individual user and occasional contributor. Besides, Gitea won't be able to make much out of individuals like me, so their roadmap will likely favor paying customers. I can guarantee that it will be too bloated to run on a Raspberry Pi Zero like I have it today, which means I'd have to choose something else.
I also suspect that switching to a for-profit company will decrease the number of volunteer contributions, after all following the same big idea that led to incorporation: who wants to work for free when someone else is making the money?
The good news about F/OSS is I have started my countdown to a community fork. After all, Gitea itself is a fork -it is the circle of life.
Edit: I forgot they are trying to pay contributors with some web3 scheme, perhaps to try and solve the inherent hypocrisy. But the cure may be worse than the disease because it further complicates the process of contributing to the project and reduces maintainer focus on actual product. Just give me pull-requests.
More on topic: does this mean occasional/casual contributors to the project will continue to work for free while maintainers & employees get paid?
1. You looked up the name of one commenter and the donations made in their name 3 years ago.
> Additionally, we’re planning on establishing a fund to be able to provide support to contributors who not only contribute features, but also bug fixes, performance enhancements, and important refactors.
Sounds like occasional contributors can receive payment as well.
Like you, I also agree that financial disclosures and citing sources are important, and so so that is why I took the 5 seconds to validate a claim someone made, and also found someone in this thread who very clearly is not disclosing a financial stake in the matter.
Edit: I have seen a maintainer in this thread, perhaps he could share some more details as they come.
[0]: https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/26/Cryptocurrency-is-a-disas...
In terms of "leaving money on the table" this is very much not that, open source is incredibly non-equitable and skews a lot to a certain way (a lot of people with who can afford to give up time to open source, not everyone but a large amount). This prevents many who have a desire to work on projects such as Gitea, but need to find a job or two to pay rent and get groceries. By establishing what we have, we are hopefully broadening the pool of people who are able to participate.
What you need is humans in the decision-making process, not algorithms.
That's exactly what you get when you release Gitea under MIT.
What they are looking for is AGPL.
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.
Citation needed.
That is in the eye of the beholder. Phrasing as 'more permissive' is more accurate.
I'm not saying I morally agree with it, but that's what I understand the word to mean.
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.
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.
And if you:
- work for a company that uses open source, look for excuses to support it (support contract, etc. I even got good value out of some.)
- are an open source project that takes donations: don't get greedy. Two projects I went out of my way to support because they were open source shortly afterwards started "experimenting with models".
How do you know it's greed and not just insufficient donations forcing them to try to find alternative financing? Just because you donated doesn't mean enough people/businesses did.
https://www.influxdata.com/blog/update-on-influxdb-clusterin...
I thought open source meant that everyone was volunteering by default, just writing the features they'd enjoy to have for themselves, and that sponsorship of development time is not the norm aside from hugely important projects (like bigcorps sponsoring kernel development, but also making billions by launching Android that makes extensive use of this kernel) or projects where the sponsor has a commercial interest. Donations are typically for raising money for things like hosting the website and download bandwidth fees.
GPL was never about doing charity.
Adopting GPL used to be a philosophical mindset consciously chosen (as opposed to freeware), and required some level of zealotry. Now, it's just a means to an end / pragmatics / a tool in the "growth hacking" toolbox because "everyone knows" having an open source project gives it an edge over closed-source equivalents on adoption.
IMO, it's not that open source developers have to earn a living (which they always have since the beginning), but that developers who want to earn a living in any way have started adopting open source by necessity. I'm no purist, regardless of motivation, the more open source projects there are, the better it is for everyone. For once the source is out: it is out.
See, that's the beauty of open source: nobody is ever obliged to do anything they don't feel like doing. If nobody wants to pay, the maintainer can just walk away. If that bothers a user, they can feel free to contribute patches and pay the maintainer's time to review and include them. (Or become a maintainer themselves using a different trademark.)
Of course, the flip side of that coin is that the maintainers are also free to try to turn their repository access into a money making machine. I don't have any issue with it, since I can just fork the code if I don't like it. It's just not the result of getting too little money and being "forced" into anything.
What this is saying is that:
1) There are some large companies that are using Gitea as a core product, and not contributing their enhancements back to the community.
2) We are starting a company that will have Gitea as a core product, and will not contribute our enhancements (“enhanced enterprise version”) back to the community.
> An enhanced enterprise version
Good thing it's towards the end, guess it's time for the next fork of gogs then.
Enterprises have very different needs to individual developers and small shops. So there are always features which apply to enterprises but not to small companies. Consider for example Active Directory integration.
Equally purchasing in an enterprise is different to small companies. If you work for a small company you can basically go to a decision maker, make a case, and if accepted then money glows within the day.
Enterprise businesses don't work like that. They basically can't just "donate money". There are a million layers to work through, and there have to be tangible reasons for spending the money - it can't be things like "good karma" etc.
So for OSS projects that are used by (especially non-tech) enterprise customers, it makes sense to be an entity, and sell a product, that enterprises can buy.
The inhibiter for an enterprise is not a lack of money on their side, its a lack of process on the OSS side which matches up to the process they have to fulfill.
I suspect this person's fears may be similar. The issue isn't that they'll offer enterprise, the issue is that they'll carve up the non-enterprise version as a differentiator.
Inevitably, and I've seen this before, the non-enterprise version loses all steam because time and effort have to be focused on the enterprise customers, and feature parity can't be maintained because those differentiators have to show value in the enterprise offering.
Those OSS users who built the community and contributed to your product for years end up having been beta testers, unceremoniously ushered out to find an alternative.
Elastic for example made the mistake of making "secure" (by default) an "Enterprise" feature of Elastic Stack, then Amazon came along and ate their lunch.
For me, I've seen this enough not to worry; if they go "south" in this respect, there are alternatives; and failing that, there's the minimalist approach of plain git.
I've worked with enterprise customers before and yes it tend to be LDAP and active directory stuff they ask for in terms of features. I run my own LDAP, am I enterprise?
Further this undermines their argument. It comes off as "hey we want some of that pie". The alternative is the foundation route. Or just to start your own system integration business, not to muddy the lines.
I certainly understand why those who are using software for free see this as the thin-edge-of-the-wedge, the start of the product morphing to something that is less free.
On the other hand, despite the health risks, eating is still enormously popular. Developers want to get paid, and so they tend to gravitate towards models that, well, earn money. OSS is great (I'm a fan) but it doesn't pay the bills. OSS should be what you do in your spare time, not your day job. If OSS is your day job then either you're lucky, and someone is funding it, or it's only a matter of time before you need to switch to a different day job.
Bottom line - if OSS doesn't sort out an actual funding model that works - if users (of the Libre version) aren't willing to pay real money, on a regular basis, en masse - then don't be surprised if the developers need to switch it up to earn a living.
There's this perception that "big companies" should just fund all OSS for everyone, but I'm saying that this can never work - that's pretty much exactly what "big companies" are set up not to do.
The "complaint" is not that I don't understand _why_ this is happening, or even so much that it _is_ happening, but in my experience, this "commercialisation" of F/L/OSS is inevitably (I'd argue) net negative for the community built around it.
Even if the core product doesn't become "paid" and we don't have this issue of whether or not people _should_ have to pay to use it, the quality of the "core" or "community" product will fall, anything new or interesting will get pay-walled and updates/features will be few and far between.
I'd call this more lamentation of a loss than anything, Gitea isn't dead (yet) because of this, but I move forward cautiously to see what comes of it.
What would be really interesting, would be to revisit this discussion in a year, two, maybe more and see what became of it.
>> The problem
Problem to whom? Not the customer (the one paying the bills), not the developer (the one getting paid) but by "the rest" - the ones consuming but not contributing.
>> closed source
Unfortunately the term "open source" encompasses a group of freedoms - the lack of any of them leads us to the term "closed source". For some projects the freedom "removed" is the right to _distribute_ the proprietary source. In other words the source might be "open" in the sense that the customer has it, but it might be "closed" in the sense that they can't distribute it.
I'd suggest that the freedom-lost in the "can't distribute" model is a good compromise (developers wanting to get paid.) I'm less favourable to a "binary blob" model. Clearly in the abstract projects could go either way.
>> not available on the same terms
ie - for free. I hear you, but I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to. The demand that they continue the project forever for no return seems, well, unfair.
"contributing", when it relates to F/LOSS software, includes non-monetary activities, which you seem to be ignoring. Nevermind the fact that the so-called consumers are the whole reason why Gitea is in the position it is today. Without adoption, it would be a bunch of people making commits on an unknown codebase. Characterizing users as moochers is bad form, amd will not end well for Gitea, IMO.
> I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to.
The other side of the libre software coin is that the users have the right to fork the project and take it in a community-driven, non-profit direction if they want to.
sure. Except those non-monetary activities don't pay the bills. I suppose I kinda fell like they have value, but on the other hand the business has to pay bills and salaries first. If that isn't done then the non-monetary value is, well, meaningless.
And of course, if there are specific users who are contributing materially with code etc then nothing stops them from getting a gratis enterprise license.
I think it's also worth noting that the "community" consists of two groups - those that are contributing to the project, and, well (your word) the moochers. Yes, even quiet users have some "value" - but it's really tiny. The ones that are contributing code and so on, obviously they have real value.
I certainly don't want to minimise the value of active contributers, but at the same time I don't want to over-value the contribution of "n anonymous users". Yes, there's a business model built on acquiring some huge number of users, then selling them on to some big corporate (like GitHub did), but I'm no sure that's in play here.
>> Nevermind the fact that the so-called consumers are the whole reason why Gitea is in the position it is today.
I'm not sure they are so-called - they clearly are consumers. And that's great for a small fledgling company starting out. But there comes a point where the bottom line has to be fed, and they aren't the ones doing the feeding.
This is obviously not a new thing that Gitea invented, we've all seen this play out a million times with startups. It's all free all the time until the money runs out. Then something has to change to make it sustainable.
>> The other side of the libre software coin is that the users have the right to fork the project and take it in a community-driven, non-profit direction if they want to.
Of course yes. If there are some group of developers who want to work on features, they are of course most welcome to do so. That is quite literally the whole point of an Open Source license. But you say this like it's a bad thing? Like it would somehow hurt Gitea if this happened. I'm not sure that's the case. (you'd just have a new set of developers with the same financial problems, and Gitea would have gobbled up some Enterprise mind-share in the meantime.)
That is why the vast majority of free or open source projects are not businesses.
> And of course, if there are specific users who are contributing materially with code etc then nothing stops them from getting a gratis enterprise license.
This is one way to kill an open source project that is new to me!
> I'm not sure they are so-called - they clearly are consumers
They do more than that (in a power-law way): the evangelize, translate docs, file bug reports, donate, provide free support online, among other activities. Reducing a community to mere consumers is self-defeating.
> you'd just have a new set of developers with the same financial problems, and Gitea would have gobbled up some Enterprise mind-share in the meantime.
Ah, I see we have a fundamental philosophical difference. I don't believe that all open source projects have to be profitable enterprises - or even a full-time job for single maintainer. A lot - I dare say most - successful projects are volunteer-driven.
The world, in my opinion (we all are being opinionated rather than right or wrong, here).
Like [almost?] everyone, I have ideas about what I think would constitute a better world. They include, within the realm of IT, a pretty much "IP" and DRM free society, open general purpose computing for all, and more truly free [as in freedom] and open source software.
I think that open core and enterprise service based models and their ilk make that world less likely. I'm not interested in finding ways to make more "silicon valley" companies profitable if they do so by making a world I don't like.
I don’t understand how anyone believes that the current trend of so called “open source” startups is good for free software or anyone other than investors.
Given that, I’m very up for experimentation with new types of organisational and finding models for open projects, including ones that use cryptocurrencies and smart contracts.
Sure, get inspired, make something similar here or there, but this is an outright copy of the whole product design.
Isn't it likely that there's just a certain kind of interface and functionality that both works and people have also gotten used to it over time?
It might make a lot of sense to copy it to at least some degree, instead of reinventing the wheel: if you look at MS Office and something like LibreOffice, you'll notice that both of the spreadsheet apps are rather similar (and you can even enable a ribbon interface in LibreOffice, if you want).
I think the same more or less applies to every piece of software, from how phone OSes look, to how desktop environments look and work, as well as why the majority of websites out there look a bit samey.
This is what I meant by 'design of git lends itself to a very specific interface'.
Git has branches, commits, merging, rebasing, ... It makes sense for a UI interface over git to show data git itself shows.
I also find little wrong with copying UI elements, where it works. The result is better software all around.
Whenever I need to report a bug on a GitLab instance, its UI is a big source of friction (especially since GitLab's UI is still annoyingly slow when loading things like issue comments).
> To preserve the community aspect of Gitea we are experimenting with creating a decentralized autonomous organization where contributors would receive benefits based on their participation such as from code, documentation, translations, and perhaps even assisting individual community members with support questions.
So Gitea wants to create a DAO and "receive benefits based on their participation such as from code" assuming it going to be similar to Gitcoin, which may involve using crypto tokens, NFTs and the like.
Good for them; either way.
Companies and corporations are far from "autonomous" however, and that word currently always implies "smart contracts" and blockchain.
Though in this case I guess they could just use Gogs anyway.
Gitea is a lot uglier than its alternative.
It could be more singular/original but people using that kind of tools are looking to get the job done, not to use some fancy website. I'd rather have speed than anything else.
It is funny that on the same community people can blame an open source tool such as gimp for not being a straight copy of photoshop, then are not happy when another open source project is staight copu of a proprietary one.
There is however a difference and that matters significantly. GitLab was a company when they made the move to Open Core. It was their decision to make, unilateraly.
Gitea was a community driver project, with elected leaders assumed to care for the need of the community before their own. But they secretly created this company and transferred the domain and trademark to the company. So the community is gone an the volunteer contributors have been taken by surprise. This is not good.
But still open source?
Thanks ddevault and anyone else from Sourcehut who may see this!
I don't want to deal with experimentation or complex organizations or "an enhanced enterprise version" or free tiers. I want someone to take money from myself and other customers, and use it to make a good product without shenanigans.
E: As far as I know, it is still possible to get free accounts on sr.ht - however, it is very transparent that this is not a permanent offer.
(referenced from the main page)
Other than that it's great, uncomplicated and doesn't try to be some special CI cloud toolchain as a service and won't spam me with notifications.
> (their move to using Gitea)[https://code.blender.org/2022/07/gitea-diaries-part-1/]
it's because you switched up which braces go where for a markdown link. should be [text](link)
(When I speak of the details of URL encoding and which characters get percent-encoded, these things weren’t quite so clearly-defined back in 2004 as they are now, but I believe it was all still true.)
nameOfLink(url)I don't know why Gruber made it backwards in Markdown but it was very clearly a mistake.
--
[1] Like this.
(Although I suppose not everyone supports that - it appears HN doesn't, for starters...)
[reference]: https://example.com/