Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums.
And how about just extending the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately feeding the outrage machine?
Writing them to resolve this issue in good faith, is giving them the benefit of the doubt.
So I think the entire doc as a first step in supposed good communication is in bad faith. Bringing this out into the public, and being on the front page of HN makes it seem like a stunt, and for pressure, not a good faith plea. I feel like a private conversation between the concerned parties should have happened first, and if it did that should have been mentioned. If that didn't work then maybe make it public for pressure, and then fork (and or consider legal action to get the trademarks if there's grounds idk not a lawyer).
If people's idea of good first step communication is to create a public letter with accusatory undertones and get it plastered places, I don't want to work with those people. They went from 0mph to 120mph way too quickly.
With a dispersed community that used to work in public, against the company owners who secretly prepared this since at least March this year (likely longer) and not even informed their own maintainers properly in the private channel they have for that.
And if the situation actually is as nefarious as you say it is, with communication having broken down, the letter should have called that out directly instead of being wishy washy. If people feel that strongly about it not being a mistake, time to use strong language and lay out all the facts.
Indeed, most of the community isn't easily reached. Hence the open letter and the ability to sign. I see the open letter as an invitation to have these conversations. But this time according to community processes and in the open.
I recognize at least 2 names in the top five as devs that I personally collaborated with in order to add features to Gitea.
And how do you know that, if I may ask?
You give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.