forgejo/discussions
49
43

Gitea is Open Core #102

Open
opened 2024年01月19日 12:22:00 +01:00 by earl-warren · 30 comments

The Forgejo comparison page reads:

Gitea is Open Core and develops software that is not published under a Free Software license, such as features on top of the Gitea codebase or the stack running its SaaS offering.

image

Gitea does what Open Core projects do

A software project is Open Core when it simultaneously develops two versions: one that is Free Software and another which is not.

Gitea

GitLab

Gitea advocates the Open Core principles

When a project behavior falls in the Open Core category, it does not necessarily mean that the people driving the project embrace the principles associated with it or even qualify it as being an Open Core project.

Gitea supports the Open Core principles by sponsoring the December 2023 edition of the Open Core summit via its parent company CommitGo.

image

The [Forgejo comparison page](https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/) reads: > Gitea is [Open Core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model) and develops software that is not published under a Free Software license, such as features on top of the Gitea codebase or the stack running its SaaS offering. ![image](/attachments/bd220ef6-67d7-4680-a01c-58bc202c871e) ## Gitea does what Open Core projects do A software project is Open Core when it simultaneously develops two versions: one that is Free Software and another which is not. ### Gitea * Not Free Software: [Gitea Enterprise](https://about.gitea.com/products/gitea-enterprise/), [Gitea Cloud](https://cloud.gitea.com), the sources of the [Gitea version derived from the Free Software version](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/92) and running in Gitea cloud, [tutorials published on gitea.com](https://about.gitea.com/resources/tutorials/) . The decision to not publish as Free Software was [approved by the Gitea technical oversight committee](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/102#issuecomment-1521539). * Free Software: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea ### GitLab * Not Free Software: [GitLab.com](https://gitlab.com/), the [proprietary part of the GitLab sources](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/tree/master/ee) which is used to run GitLab.com * Free Software: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss ## Gitea advocates the Open Core principles When a project behavior falls in the Open Core category, it does not necessarily mean that the people driving the project embrace the principles associated with it or even qualify it as being an Open Core project. Gitea supports the Open Core principles by [sponsoring the December 2023 edition of the Open Core summit](https://web.archive.org/web/20231127121443/https://opencoresummit.com/sponsors/) via its [parent company CommitGo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/85). ![image](/attachments/27b7a922-d384-450c-8c17-44c6e558c294)

@6543 could you please explain why you think Gitea is not an Open Core project?

@6543 could you please explain why you think Gitea is not an Open Core project?

@fnetX in another discussions you wrote that Gitea is "[...]a software product that is used to advertise Open Core SaaS services[...]." But the SaaS service is not Open Core as it would imply there is a Free Software version of it, which is not the case. Gitea is Open Core because it has a Free Software component that can be found on GitHub and a non Free Software component that is developed for Gitea Cloud.

It would be more accurate to say that Gitea Cloud is an online service that is not Free Software although it is built on top of Free Software.

In this instance Gitea Cloud is actually worse than GitLab. The sources of the proprietary part of GitLab have been published but the sources of the version of Gitea running in Gitea Cloud were not.

@fnetX in another discussions you wrote that Gitea is "[...]a software product that is used to advertise Open Core SaaS services[...]." But the SaaS service is not Open Core as it would imply there is a Free Software version of it, which is not the case. Gitea is Open Core because it has a Free Software component that can be found on GitHub and a non Free Software component that is developed for Gitea Cloud. It would be more accurate to say that Gitea Cloud is an online service that is not Free Software although it is built on top of Free Software. In this instance Gitea Cloud is actually worse than GitLab. The sources of the proprietary part of GitLab have been published but the sources of the version of Gitea running in Gitea Cloud were not.
Owner
Copy link

OK.

I'd explicitly collect some parts of the software that are not Free/Libre.

For once, there appears to be non-free theme development. The website's screenshots show a theme variant that is not available. I explicitly asked this in the Gitea chatroom and messages confirmed that it is not available. I am not sure if it is available to Gitea cloud customers either, but since it is used to advertize a product and there is no open development for it, I think it is relevant to note this.

Further, the investigations of the Gitea cloud offer observed behaviour of the platform that does not come from the logic in the Free Software version. But I suppose that someone else can summarize this more elegantly.

OK. I'd explicitly collect some parts of the software that are not Free/Libre. For once, there appears to be non-free theme development. The [website's screenshots show a theme variant](https://about.gitea.com/img/home-screenshot.png) that is not available. I explicitly [asked this in the Gitea chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/%23gitea%3Amatrix.org/%2491KX8HUel9DpX6BY-J0Y-uw2siy_qC9wH0al3fkauos?via=matrix.tu-berlin.de&via=matrix.org&via=maclemon.at&via=aria-net.org) and [messages confirmed](https://matrix.to/#/%23gitea%3Amatrix.org/%24q1bXIGiY5PY3NwhWPiVEWSJYLp2mu2ZDWyZqqyCC3YI?via=matrix.tu-berlin.de&via=matrix.org&via=maclemon.at&via=aria-net.org) that [it is not available](https://matrix.to/#/%23gitea%3Amatrix.org/%243M9o6y94AT-zYF-3tUpirMHAjpTJGXyA_E0tVTPcIhM?via=matrix.tu-berlin.de&via=matrix.org&via=maclemon.at&via=aria-net.org). I am not sure if it is available to Gitea cloud customers either, but since it is used to advertize a product and there is no open development for it, I think it is relevant to note this. Further, the [investigations of the Gitea cloud offer](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/92) observed behaviour of the platform that does not come from the logic in the Free Software version. But I suppose that someone else can summarize this more elegantly.

I do not think anyone is disputing that Gitea Cloud and the version of Gitea that runs inside it are not Free Software. Or is there?

I do not think anyone is disputing that Gitea Cloud and the version of Gitea that runs inside it are not Free Software. Or is there?

Gitea supports the Open Core principles by sponsoring the December 2023 edition of the Open Core summit

You know who was the co-lead of that conference? Automattic, the company behind Wordpress. Who also happen to have a hosted version of WordPress. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who considers WordPress "open-core."

@6543 could you please explain why you think Gitea is not an Open Core project?

Look at the repository, and you'll see all the code there is licensed as MIT, an open-source license. That is Gitea. The community project that has yearly elected leadership, the one that requires reviews on PRs to get merged in.

> Gitea supports the Open Core principles by sponsoring the December 2023 edition of the Open Core summit You know who was the co-lead of that conference? Automattic, the company behind Wordpress. Who also happen to have a hosted version of WordPress. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who considers WordPress "open-core." > @6543 could you please explain why you think Gitea is not an Open Core project? Look at the repository, and you'll see all the code there is licensed as MIT, an open-source license. That is Gitea. The community project that has yearly elected leadership, the one that requires reviews on PRs to get merged in.

I'm sure there were lots of good people at this conference. But their good reputation is not an inherited property that Gitea can claim for itself. It is not transitive.

I linked at the repository, I know it exists and is Free Software. What makes Gitea Open Core is the part that is not Free Software.

I'm sure there were lots of good people at this conference. But their good reputation is not an inherited property that Gitea can claim for itself. It is not transitive. I linked at the repository, I know it exists and is Free Software. What makes Gitea Open Core is the part that is not Free Software.

It is not transitive.

I'm not saying it's transitive. I'm saying the claims you are making would apply to Automattic/WordPress too, especially given they were CO-LEADS of the conference, and also have a managed hosted service.

I know it exists and is Free Software

Ok, so we agree. Gitea is free software.

> It is not transitive. I'm not saying it's transitive. I'm saying the claims you are making would apply to Automattic/WordPress too, especially given they were CO-LEADS of the conference, and also have a managed hosted service. > I know it exists and is Free Software Ok, so we agree. Gitea is free software.
Owner
Copy link

The debate here is what we call "Gitea". For me, Gitea is no longer only the Free Software base at https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/, but since the domain and trademarks are transferred, Gitea is a project that also offers a non-free cloud service and uses the Free Software version to link to this service from installations. The branding on the https://gitea.com website refers to the free part as "Gitea Server". So we agree that "Gitea Server" is a free software product, but Gitea-the-project (or maybe Gitea-the-website) is Open Core, because it has non-free components.

The debate here is what we call "Gitea". For me, Gitea is no longer only the Free Software base at https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/, but since the domain and trademarks are transferred, Gitea is a project that also offers a non-free cloud service and uses the Free Software version to link to this service from installations. The branding on the https://gitea.com website refers to the free part as "Gitea Server". So we agree that "Gitea Server" is a free software product, but Gitea-the-project (or maybe Gitea-the-website) is Open Core, because it has non-free components.
Member
Copy link

Hello,

Determining whether Gitea is open core or not, is not about what the company's representatives do or don't do with anyone anywhere, but is only about checking whether there are differences between Gitea instances hosted by ourselves and Gitea Cloud.

So, are there ?

Hello, Determining whether Gitea is open core or not, is not about what the company's representatives do or don't do with anyone anywhere, but is only about checking whether there are differences between Gitea instances hosted by ourselves and Gitea Cloud. So, are there ?
Owner
Copy link

@KaKi87 As far as we were able to confirm, there are. #102 (comment)

@KaKi87 As far as we were able to confirm, there are. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/102#issuecomment-1516851

I know it exists and is Free Software

Ok, so we agree. Gitea is free software.

I will not comment on that, you are taking part of a sentence I wrote to claim that I agree with you, although I explicitly said the opposite. This is not a proper way to conduct a conversation.

> > I know it exists and is Free Software > > Ok, so we agree. Gitea is free software. I will not comment on that, you are taking part of a sentence I wrote to claim that I agree with you, although I explicitly said the opposite. This is not a proper way to conduct a conversation.

well I think the word gitea still mainly represents the software and not the company supporting it's development - most people (me included) are not lawyers and don't care about trademarks in there normal live ... but i can see the point. so in this case not gitea the project is opencore but the trademark is now not in public domain ...

I see the point where, this could be bad for all related projects, if e.g. GoCommit would turn evil at some point.

by the way how did forgejo save there trademark and made sure to have it in public domain? (just for my save of interest :) )

well I think the word `gitea` still mainly represents the software and not the company supporting it's development - most people (me included) are not lawyers and don't care about trademarks in there normal live ... but i can see the point. so in this case not gitea the project is opencore but the trademark is now not in public domain ... I see the point where, this could be bad for all related projects, if e.g. GoCommit would turn evil at some point. by the way how did forgejo save there trademark and made sure to have it in public domain? (just for my save of interest :) )

The debate here is what we call "Gitea". ...

If that's the case, it would be wise to give "Gitea-the-free-software-project-that-once-was-Gitea-but-no-longer" a name such as "Gitea CE" or "Gitea FOSS".

> The debate here is what we call "Gitea". ... If that's the case, it would be wise to give "Gitea-the-free-software-project-that-once-was-Gitea-but-no-longer" a name such as "Gitea CE" or "Gitea FOSS".

...
by the way how did forgejo save there trademark and made sure to have it in public domain? (just for my save of interest :) )

hah yes - rtfm: https://forgejo.org/faq/#who-owns-the-forgejo-domains-and-trademarks

> ... > by the way how did forgejo save there trademark and made sure to have it in public domain? (just for my save of interest :) ) hah yes - rtfm: https://forgejo.org/faq/#who-owns-the-forgejo-domains-and-trademarks

@6543

well I think the word gitea still mainly represents the software ...

I suppose you mean some of the Gitea software, the Free Software part, not all of the software that would include the part that is not Free Software.

You are one of the three elected community members who sit on the Gitea technical oversight committee since early 2023. As far as I'm aware there are no publicly available transcript/recording of the deliberations that led to the decision to not publish the Gitea Cloud stack or the modified version of GItea running in Gitea Cloud as Free Software.

Were you in favor of this decision or opposed and overruled by the majority? Three out of six members are Gitea Ltd. employees & founders, all of them with a financial interest to be against the publication as Free Software.

@6543 > well I think the word gitea still mainly represents the software ... I suppose you mean some of the Gitea software, the Free Software part, not all of the software that would include the part that is not Free Software. You are one of the three elected community members who sit on the [Gitea technical oversight committee](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#technical-oversight-committee-toc) since early 2023. As far as I'm aware there are no publicly available transcript/recording of the deliberations that led to the decision to not publish the Gitea Cloud stack or the modified version of GItea running in Gitea Cloud as Free Software. Were you in favor of this decision or opposed and overruled by the majority? Three out of six members are Gitea Ltd. employees & founders, all of them with a financial interest to be against the publication as Free Software.

there are no publicly available transcript/recording of the deliberations that led to the decision to not publish the Gitea Cloud stack or the modified version of GItea running in Gitea Cloud as Free Software.

well as there are non - the "cloud stack" runs gitea of the shelf

Were you in favor of this decision or opposed

well I'm transparent: i did not reject it - as i saw it as enrichment to support the project

> there are no publicly available transcript/recording of the deliberations that led to the decision to not publish the Gitea Cloud stack or the modified version of GItea running in Gitea Cloud as Free Software. well as there are non - the "cloud stack" runs gitea of the shelf > Were you in favor of this decision or opposed well I'm transparent: i did not reject it - as i saw it as enrichment to support the project

well I'm transparent: i did not reject it - as i saw it as enrichment to support the project

Which makes Gitea part Free Software part not Free Software. Since you're OK with this idea, why are you opposed to calling it for what it is: an Open Core project?

Edit:

the "cloud stack" runs gitea of the shelf

No, it does not, see evidence here.

> well I'm transparent: i did not reject it - as i saw it as enrichment to support the project Which makes Gitea part Free Software part not Free Software. Since you're OK with this idea, why are you opposed to calling it for what it is: an Open Core project? --- Edit: > the "cloud stack" runs gitea of the shelf No, it does not, see [evidence here](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/92).
Member
Copy link

I am not sure if it is available to Gitea cloud customers either

It doesn't seem so :

since it is used to advertize a product and there is no open development for it, I think it is relevant to note this

That's hardly an "enterprise edition feature", though.

investigations of the Gitea cloud offer observed behaviour of the platform that does not come from the logic in the Free Software version

I would tend to believe that the runner thing could be external rather than added to Gitea. 🤔

> I am not sure if it is available to Gitea cloud customers either It doesn't seem so : ![](/attachments/9881f004-0060-4154-bb86-e059e48d1451) > since it is used to advertize a product and there is no open development for it, I think it is relevant to note this That's hardly an "enterprise edition feature", though. > investigations of the Gitea cloud offer observed behaviour of the platform that does not come from the logic in the Free Software version I would tend to believe that the runner thing could be external rather than added to Gitea. 🤔

well I think the word gitea still mainly represents the software and not the company supporting it's development

Which software? If I go to gitea.com right now, two big buttons show up in front me prompting me to use an unfree software. Similarly, if I go to gitlab.com, the big buttons that show up in front me prompt me to use an unfree software.

Sure, there is free software that powers both unfree software, however, isn't that exactly what Open Core entails?

> well I think the word gitea still mainly represents the software and not the company supporting it's development Which software? If I go to gitea.com right now, two big buttons show up in front me prompting me to use an unfree software. Similarly, if I go to gitlab.com, the big buttons that show up in front me prompt me to use an unfree software. Sure, there is free software that powers both unfree software, however, isn't that exactly what Open Core entails?

This got a bit heated...

I see that the giteas view is something along those lines:
It is 100% free software, we do have some commercial offerings, which require minor patches which we will mostly release when in a proper shape.

While the term "open core" originally meant a company choosing a business model that commercially develops software but gives the core as a "gift" (free candy to lure you) but also charges for the full package, gitea on the other hand started as being 100% free software without being backed by a company at all. So that seems to be used as a the main argument why it is not open core but fully free software.

But now gitea seems to be moving in an unknown direction, partly due to insufficient communication, unanswered open letters, etc . The directions and intentions of Gitea Ltd/commitGo were and still are unknown to Codeberg and I suspect a young company still has to find its direction and adjust its business model. That's normal. But now the main reason behind the choice why I chose gitea over other options for Codeberg in 2018 for was, that there was no company behind gitea and it was puerly community developed. That main reason is now void.

Right now one can argue if it is truly "open core" or just shows first signs of moving into that direction. Both does not fit Codeberg.

Definitely I am glad and thankful that forgejo exists.

This got a bit heated... I see that the giteas view is something along those lines: _It is 100% free software, we do have some commercial offerings, which require minor patches which we will mostly release when in a proper shape._ While the term "open core" originally meant a company choosing a business model that commercially develops software but gives the core as a "gift" (free candy to lure you) but also charges for the full package, gitea on the other hand started as being 100% free software without being backed by a company at all. So that seems to be used as a the main argument why it is not open core but fully free software. But now gitea seems to be moving in an _unknown_ direction, partly due to insufficient communication, unanswered open letters, etc . The directions and intentions of Gitea Ltd/commitGo were and still are unknown to Codeberg and I suspect a young company still has to find its direction and adjust its business model. That's normal. But now the main reason behind the choice why I chose gitea over other options for Codeberg in 2018 for was, that there was no company behind gitea and it was puerly community developed. That main reason is now void. Right now one can argue if it is truly "open core" or just shows first signs of moving into that direction. Both does not fit Codeberg. Definitely I am glad and thankful that forgejo exists.

Yes forgejo is an enrichment to the whole ecosystem ... throug thats not what this issue do frame here

Yes it's heated here and my arguments are not taken into considderation as such i sayed all i want to.

I'll unfollow this issue from here onwards ...

Yes forgejo is an enrichment to the whole ecosystem ... throug thats not what this issue do frame here Yes it's heated here and my arguments are not taken into considderation as such i sayed all i want to. I'll unfollow this issue from here onwards ...

Thanks for writing this. I didn't know! The evidence and links presented here convinced me that Gitea is Open Core.

I suggest to put a copy of this text on a special webpage on forgejo.org. Because right now, the Comparison page (https://forgejo.org/compare/#user-content-fn-1) links to this issue which is a bit awkward.

I think calling it "Open Core" is justified because the Gitea project not only has proprietary components but also justifies it. That's Open Core logic, no matter how you twist and turn it. The post provides more than enough evidence. I agree there are parrallels to GitLab.

The fact that only a "few parts" are proprietary does not matter. The fact there is a technical distinction between several Gitea sub-projects/components/whatever, some of which are free software, some of which aren't, does not matter either. That's just more evidence for it being open core. The fact remains that a proprietary "version" is offered next to a libre one, and is advertised on the homepage. This is one of THE cornerstones of Open Core logic.

Whether a project is Open Core or not is not a matter of opinion but a matter of how the software is being offered. The facts clearly show Gitea is an Open Core project right now. And when Gitea decides to drop the proprietary components, or make them libre, it will cease being Open Core and I will advocate for retracting this text as outdated.

Thanks for writing this. I didn't know! The evidence and links presented here convinced me that Gitea is Open Core. I suggest to put a copy of this text on a special webpage on forgejo.org. Because right now, the Comparison page (<https://forgejo.org/compare/#user-content-fn-1>) links to this issue which is a bit awkward. I think calling it "Open Core" is justified because the Gitea project not only has proprietary components but also *justifies* it. That's Open Core logic, no matter how you twist and turn it. The post provides more than enough evidence. I agree there are parrallels to GitLab. The fact that only a "few parts" are proprietary does not matter. The fact there is a technical distinction between several Gitea sub-projects/components/whatever, some of which are free software, some of which aren't, does not matter either. That's just more evidence for it being open core. The fact remains that a proprietary "version" is offered next to a libre one, and is advertised on the homepage. This is one of THE cornerstones of Open Core logic. Whether a project is Open Core or not is not a matter of opinion but a matter of how the software is being offered. The facts clearly show Gitea is an Open Core project right now. And when Gitea decides to drop the proprietary components, or make them libre, it will cease being Open Core and I will advocate for retracting this text as outdated.

Two months later CommitGo (7 March 2024), the parent company of Gitea announced Gitea Enterprise on the Gitea blog where releases are published. The first item of the FAQ is:

  • Does this mean Gitea is now Open-Core?

No, the Gitea project governance charter prohibits the inclusion of proprietary code, and we adhere to the project standards. Gitea Enterprise is an offering of CommitGo, not the Technical Oversight Committee of Gitea itself.

It is very short but it also the only two sentences published by Gitea since the corporate takeover late 2022. I read it a few times and still cannot make logical sense of the sentence. After this I really wonder is if any Gitea volunteer contributor can still believe they are more than free labor working for a corporation.

Forgejo is now a hard fork so it does not matter that much.

Two months later CommitGo (7 March 2024), the parent company of Gitea [announced Gitea Enterprise](https://blog.gitea.com/gitea-enterprise/) on the Gitea blog where releases are published. The first item of the FAQ is: > * Does this mean Gitea is now Open-Core? > > No, the Gitea project governance charter prohibits the inclusion of proprietary code, and we adhere to the project standards. Gitea Enterprise is an offering of CommitGo, not the Technical Oversight Committee of Gitea itself. It is very short but it also the only two sentences published by Gitea since the corporate takeover late 2022. I read it a few times and still cannot make logical sense of the sentence. After this I really wonder is if any Gitea volunteer contributor can still believe they are more than free labor working for a corporation. Forgejo is now a hard fork so it does not matter that much.

Oh boy, they are really trying hard to avoid being accurately labelled "open core".

No, the Gitea project governance charter prohibits the inclusion of proprietary code, and we adhere to the project standards. Gitea Enterprise is an offering of CommitGo, not the Technical Oversight Committee of Gitea itself.

This answer contradicts itself. If they really prohibit the inclusion of proprietary code, then why is Gitea Enterprise/Cloud/whatever allowed to exist in its current proprietary form?

Oh wait, NOW I get it! Just because the governance charter says the inclusion of proprietary code isn't permitted doesn't mean this charter is actually enforced. 🤡

In all seriousness, tho: As long there are several versions/variants/editions of Gitea offered and advertised (on the homepage, even!), one that is free software, and the other versions aren't, that's exactly the definition of open-core.

Oh boy, they are *really* trying hard to avoid being accurately labelled "open core". > No, the Gitea project governance charter prohibits the inclusion of proprietary code, and we adhere to the project standards. Gitea Enterprise is an offering of CommitGo, not the Technical Oversight Committee of Gitea itself. This answer contradicts itself. If they really prohibit the inclusion of proprietary code, then why is Gitea Enterprise/Cloud/whatever allowed to exist in its current proprietary form? Oh wait, NOW I get it! Just because the governance charter *says* the inclusion of proprietary code isn't permitted doesn't mean this charter is *actually* enforced. 🤡 In all seriousness, tho: As long there are several versions/variants/editions of Gitea offered and advertised (on the homepage, even!), one that is free software, and the other versions aren't, that's *exactly* the definition of open-core.
Member
Copy link

This answer contradicts itself.

Not really.

If they really prohibit the inclusion of proprietary code, then why is Gitea Enterprise/Cloud/whatever allowed to exist in its current proprietary form?

This says that including proprietary code into Gitea is forbidden, but the Cloud platform itself (registration, billing, deployment, etc.) isn't part of Gitea so it can be proprietary without contradicting this statement, as long as the Gitea instance that is deployed for the customer contains nothing extra compared to the open source project repo.

> This answer contradicts itself. Not really. > If they really prohibit the inclusion of proprietary code, then why is Gitea Enterprise/Cloud/whatever allowed to exist in its current proprietary form? This says that including proprietary code *into Gitea* is forbidden, but the Cloud platform itself (registration, billing, deployment, etc.) isn't part of Gitea so it can be proprietary without contradicting this statement, as long as the Gitea instance that is deployed for the customer contains nothing extra compared to the open source project repo.

I think what they want to say is "the Gitea open source project will never have proprietary components in it, hence it will never be open core". However this is not the definition of Open Core.

According to Wikipedia:

The open-core model primarily involves offering a "core" or feature-limited version of a software product as free and open-source software, while offering "commercial" versions or add-ons as proprietary software.

If the name of the software was something else than Gitea Enterprise, it could be argued that it is a totally different project from Gitea-the-open-source-software (but since the same individuals control both projects, it wouldn’t actually change much)

I think what they want to say is "the Gitea open source project will never have proprietary components in it, hence it will never be open core". However this is not the definition of Open Core. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model?wprov=sfti1#): > The open-core model primarily involves offering a "core" or feature-limited version of a software product as free and open-source software, while offering "commercial" versions or add-ons as proprietary software. If the name of the software was something else than **Gitea** Enterprise, it could be argued that it is a totally different project from Gitea-the-open-source-software (but since the same individuals control both projects, it wouldn’t actually change much)

@KaKi87 you will find above evidence that the Gitea version deployed in the cloud already had additions that are not free software since its inception. And it will run Gitea Enterprise now, which has even more.

@KaKi87 you will find above evidence that the Gitea version deployed in the cloud already had additions that are not free software since its inception. And it will run Gitea Enterprise now, which has even more.
Member
Copy link

the Gitea version deployed in the cloud already had additions that are not free software since its inception

I already commented on how that's a bit of a stretch.

However,

it will run Gitea Enterprise now, which has even more

The article Earl Warren linked talks at length about differences, indicating unequivocally that Gitea became open core indeed.

I think what they want to say is "the Gitea open source project will never have proprietary components in it, hence it will never be open core".

Hmm, good catch. Should we report this in case that's the mistake they made ?

What I initially thought they meant is "Gitea Enterprise doesn't contain proprietary components therefore Gitea isn't open core", which would turn out to be a lie anyway.

Actually I just re-read it again and am coming up with a third possibility, specifically focusing on the second part of their statement : "Even though Gitea Enterprise contains proprietary components, it doesn't make Gitea open core because each project is ran by independent organizations".

Which, even if true, would remain bad faith as both projects are ran by the same people :

CommitGo, a company founded by members of the Gitea Technical Oversight Committee

(in which case we'd be wasting time trying to report this to them though).

> the Gitea version deployed in the cloud already had additions that are not free software since its inception I already commented on how that's a bit of a stretch. However, > it will run Gitea Enterprise now, which has even more The article Earl Warren linked talks at length about differences, indicating unequivocally that Gitea became open core indeed. > I think what they want to say is "the Gitea open source project will never have proprietary components in it, hence it will never be open core". Hmm, good catch. Should we report this in case that's the mistake they made ? What I initially thought they meant is "Gitea Enterprise doesn't contain proprietary components therefore Gitea isn't open core", which would turn out to be a lie anyway. Actually I just re-read it again and am coming up with a third possibility, specifically focusing on the second part of their statement : "Even though Gitea Enterprise contains proprietary components, it doesn't make Gitea open core because each project is ran by independent organizations". Which, even if true, would remain bad faith as both projects are ran by the same people : > CommitGo, a company founded by members of the Gitea Technical Oversight Committee (in which case we'd be wasting time trying to report this to them though).

For the record, the description as it stands today, before it is updated.

The Forgejo comparison page reads:

Gitea is Open Core and develops software that is not published under a Free Software license, such as features on top of the Gitea codebase or the stack running its SaaS offering.

image

Gitea does what Open Core projects do

A software project is Open Core when it simultaneously develops two versions: one that is Free Software and another which is not.

Gitea

GitLab

Gitea advocates the Open Core principles

When a project behavior falls in the Open Core category, it does not necessarily mean that the people driving the project embrace the principles associated with it or even qualify it as being an Open Core project.

Gitea supports the Open Core principles by sponsoring the December 2023 edition of the Open Core summit via its parent company CommitGo.

image

For the record, the description as it stands today, before it is updated. --- The [Forgejo comparison page](https://forgejo.org/compare/) reads: > Gitea is [Open Core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model) and develops software that is not published under a Free Software license, such as features on top of the Gitea codebase or the stack running its SaaS offering. ![image](/attachments/b95a2fcf-c0a7-4065-8dfc-3dfdbdc663e9) ## Gitea does what Open Core projects do A software project is Open Core when it simultaneously develops two versions: one that is Free Software and another which is not. ### Gitea * Not Free Software: [Gitea Cloud](https://cloud.gitea.com), the sources of the [Gitea version derived from the Free Software version](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/92) and running in Gitea cloud, [tutorials published on gitea.com](https://about.gitea.com/resources/tutorials/) . The decision to not publish as Free Software was [approved by the Gitea technical oversight committee](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/102#issuecomment-1521539). * Free Software: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea ### GitLab * Not Free Software: [GitLab.com](https://gitlab.com/), the [proprietary part of the GitLab sources](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/tree/master/ee) which is used to run GitLab.com * Free Software: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss ## Gitea advocates the Open Core principles When a project behavior falls in the Open Core category, it does not necessarily mean that the people driving the project embrace the principles associated with it or even qualify it as being an Open Core project. Gitea supports the Open Core principles by [sponsoring the December 2023 edition of the Open Core summit](https://web.archive.org/web/20231127121443/https://opencoresummit.com/sponsors/) via its [parent company CommitGo](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/85). ![image](/attachments/7d705307-dd2d-44d0-ac68-7435008b16d9)

The description was updated to include Gitea Enterprise

The description was updated to include Gitea Enterprise
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
No results found.
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels
User research - Accessibility
Requires input about accessibility features, likely involves user testing.
User research - Blocked
Do not pick as-is! We are happy if you can help, but please coordinate with ongoing redesign in this area.
User research - Community
Community features, such as discovering other people's work or otherwise feeling welcome on a Forgejo instance.
User research - Config (instance)
Instance-wide configuration, authentication and other admin-only needs.
User research - Errors
How to deal with errors in the application and write helpful error messages.
User research - Filters
How filter and search is being worked with.
User research - Future backlog
The issue might be inspiring for future design work.
User research - Git workflow
AGit, fork-based and new Git workflow, PR creation etc
User research - Labels
Active research about Labels
User research - Moderation
Moderation Featuers for Admins are undergoing active User Research
User research - Needs input
Use this label to let the User Research team know their input is requested.
User research - Notifications/Dashboard
Research on how users should know what to do next.
User research - Rendering
Text rendering, markup languages etc
User research - Repo creation
Active research about the New Repo dialog.
User research - Repo units
The repo sections, disabling them and the "Add more" button.
User research - Security
User research - Settings (in-app)
How to structure in-app settings in the future?
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
9 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Reference
forgejo/discussions#102
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/discussions
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?