Seemed to me like they had a point and it's worth considering following that project [2] instead.
[0] https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/
In the past months all they have done is rebrand Gitea and some minor fixes, but upstream (gitea) has added a huge number of features and merged tons of valuable pull requests. So are they just going to continuously merge upstream into their fork and do nothing besides that?
The platform, Codeberg might be "well" funded but not to maintain another extra project and develop new features for it.
I think the outrage was a little too big initially. It's a big task to create a git host that needs to compete with Github and the likes and I think it's fair that you want to make some money on the side with that.
Compare these merged PRs:
Forgejo https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=...
Gitea https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclose...
That seems completely irrelevant and orthogonal to the outrage though?
The Forjero commits prove that this is incorrect (they are still busy removing Gitea branding related things from their code). It's going to take a long time until they begin to match the Gitea momentum.
I'd hope so! I am not interested in many of the features being added to Gitea (i.e. the momentum you allude to[1]). I want a light binary I can continue to self-host on a Raspberry Pi Zero that doesn't have Docker installed.
1. I feel Gitea is being positioned as a competitor to GitHub and GitLab - good for them! However, the previous iteration was close to perfect for my needs, albeit not very monetizable. I'm glad it got forked and will be side-grading to Forgejo.
The momentum stalled when the community was plagued recently by toxic behaviour of one of the members who started the fork. He had to step down from the "well-being" team[1], bullied a moderation team member into stepping down[2] and forced him to disclose information from a private chat[3].
Now he is trying to "reboot" the community to erase his previous bad behaviour [4]
Forgejo members are also unhappy about conflicts of interest of this individual [5]
The Forgejo community is stronger than this one individual, so it will succeed.
[1]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/commit/d822fc3b90f79372023...
[2]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82...
[3]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82...
[4]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187
[5]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-843...
Just to clarify, only one maintainer left the project to my knowledge, although a few other contributors did as well. The majority of us remained with the Gitea project.
The Forgejo folks seem to object to Gitea on the basis that a company took the project over. I think it was that an American company took it over, not that a company took it over. They didn't AGPL forego, they just soft forked and backed the fork with a European organization instead of an American one, Codeberg[1]. Yes, the org is non-profit, but it still smacks as hypocritical.
I'll be sticking with Gitea for the foreseeable future.
Straining to assume good faith here but this seems very likely to be wilful misinfo - particularly given the emphasis. The reasons for the fork are very clearly stated in the lettter linked in the comment you're replying to: it's about community decision-making procedures (which have been removed during the incorporation). It's also about profit: the US corp is for-profit.
Secondly, not only are Codeberg a non-profit, they also adopted the project after the fork. That wasn't a part of the original letter nor discussion. They don't control the project (see aforementioned objections on the basis of democratic input) - they're a host & benefactor.
A quick clarification here, the new TOC is comprised of three company members and three community members, with community members having a slight advantage should there be a split vote on anything.
A small clarification, Gitea Ltd. which owns the trademark and domain is (apparently) based in China.
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
> 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
> 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.
Could someone post a link to the decision?
I think, this seems to be the discussion everyone is talking about
There have been a few cases of open source collectives/coops that do what Gitea does but distribute the profits to contributors equally, wonder if any of those have reached sustainability.
At this point forgejo is just a soft-fork as well, so there really isn't any reason or hurry to switch (yet) in my opinion.
Though it did stand out that they are migrating stuff from gitea.io to gitea.com, as mentioned in this blog post.
We've had the .com domain for a little while, so now we're starting to consolidate things to it.
Disclaimer: I am a part of the Gitea TOC, and am employed to work on Gitea.
"This is a custom fork of nektos/act, for the purpose of serving act_runner.
It cannot be used as command line tool anymore, but only as a library.
It's a soft fork, which means that it will tracking the latest release of nektos/act."
Now I worry even more about everyone maintaining forks of everything rather than doing original development.
I wonder what differences there are between Gitea's and Forgejo's forks, and also why they couldn't work with upstream.