Still not accepting Codeberg moral stance.

Yes, gitea (and originally gogs) are released under permissive licenses, so it's legally allowed to fork them.

But forking complete working projects with years of work, rebranding with a "good guys" attitude, and progressively erasing the name/history (mentioning a gitea fork has moved down the faq now) is not fair.

Edit: even worse, the word "fork" is not in the FAQ. It is "Comparison with Gitea" now (fork is mentioned on that page).

▲

jen729w 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software…

– https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/LICENSE

If you don't want your software used like that, don't choose this licence.

You can't post-hoc decide how people behave.

▲

jdiaz97 2 hours ago | parent [-]

open source is all fun and games until they fork you

	▲	cobalt60 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I mean you build a base for your oss tooling. You reject a base's notion, what do you expect?

▲

looperhacks an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is already a crazy take on its own, why would a fork have to describe their relation to the parent project front and center? Both the Readme and the comparison page link to the origin blog post [1] that describes the lineage clearly.

But even if there were some "ethical reason" to do this, I don't think Gitea is the right project to play up as a victim. Their homepage [2] doesn't mention that Gitea itself is a fork either. Their Readme does, but is this so much better?

[1]: https://forgejo.org/2022-12-15-hello-forgejo/ [2]: https://about.gitea.com/