Non-forgejo owned forgejo.* domains & overall business marketing #434

pat-s commented 2026年01月06日 01:37:27 +01:00

What is the project's stance on this case?
I am asking that question because I just stumbled about https://www.forgejo.ch/ being owned by VSHN, a (Swiss) company offering hosted & managed Forgejo services¹ .

To me, this domain ownership makes it look like VSHN is "very closely mingled" with Forgejo. Is this in the interest of the project?
With "very closely mingled" I mean: backing the project/providing consistent improvements, and maybe even being active in project's future directions. Yet, AFAIK the first one is not happening , the dev part also doesn't apply (unless I am overlooking something, please correct me if I am wrong) and the latter is also certainly not desired (in the sense of a company having strong influence). However, given this domain ownership and the heavy marketing of managed Forgejo by them (codey.ch, Forgejo by VSHN and forgejo.ch) arguably paints a different picture to the (average) outside viewer (or web searcher).

I'd welcome if Forgejo would take a clear stance on this to avoid such cases and misunderstandings. Maybe even contact such companies to reflect/refactor their offerings and improve their relation to the project.
Additionally, I'd like to see the project claiming all (common) TLD themselves to avoid being used as redirects for business offers.

What is the project's stance on this case? I am asking that question because I just stumbled about https://www.forgejo.ch/ being owned by VSHN, a (Swiss) company offering hosted & managed Forgejo services[^1]. To me, this domain ownership makes it look like VSHN is "very closely mingled" with Forgejo. Is this in the interest of the project? With "very closely mingled" I mean: backing the project/providing consistent improvements, and maybe even being active in project's future directions. Yet, AFAIK the first one is not happening , the dev part also doesn't apply (unless I am overlooking something, please correct me if I am wrong) and the latter is also certainly not desired (in the sense of a company having strong influence). However, given this domain ownership and the heavy marketing of managed Forgejo by them (codey.ch, Forgejo by VSHN and forgejo.ch) arguably paints a different picture to the (average) outside viewer (or web searcher). I'd welcome if Forgejo would take a clear stance on this to avoid such cases and misunderstandings. Maybe even contact such companies to reflect/refactor their offerings and improve their relation to the project. Additionally, I'd like to see the project claiming all (common) TLD themselves to avoid being used as redirects for business offers. [^1]: Disclaimer: I am also owning a Swiss-based company offering Forgejo services. Hence, I also have a partly business-related interest in this topic as VSHN is effectively a competitor - besides my personal view as a community member and contributor.

Gusted commented 2026年01月06日 10:14:05 +01:00

From my perspective this at a minimum needs a "not associated with the Forgejo project" disclaimer that you often see as it's using Forgejo's brand to make this offer and to my knowledge the Forgejo project does not work on this. That said, Forgejo is not a registered trademark.

CC @tobru, you mentioned a while ago being associated with VSHN.

From my perspective this at a minimum needs a "not associated with the Forgejo project" disclaimer that you often see as it's using Forgejo's brand to make this offer and to my knowledge the Forgejo project does not work on this. That said, Forgejo is not a registered trademark. CC @tobru, you mentioned a while ago being associated with VSHN.

tobru commented 2026年01月06日 10:24:56 +01:00

@Gusted @pat-s Thanks for bringing this topic to my attention. I will take care to improve the wording and situation of this landing page. It's not the intention to harm the project in any way! We'll certainly add the mentioned disclaimer.

@Gusted @pat-s Thanks for bringing this topic to my attention. I will take care to improve the wording and situation of this landing page. It's not the intention to harm the project in any way! We'll certainly add the mentioned disclaimer.

pat-s commented 2026年01月06日 11:05:49 +01:00

@tobru What about forgejo.ch? Would you mind handing this domain over to Forgejo?

@tobru What about forgejo.ch? Would you mind handing this domain over to Forgejo?

aahlenst commented 2026年01月06日 11:28:03 +01:00

@Gusted wrote in #434 (comment):

Forgejo is not a registered trademark

It would probably make sense to register it. The way WIPO operates, owning Forgejo (doesn't require putting TM or R everywhere) might spare the project some headaches down the road.

@Gusted wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-9577421: > Forgejo is not a registered trademark It would probably make sense to register it. The way WIPO operates, owning Forgejo (doesn't require putting TM or R everywhere) might spare the project some headaches down the road.

tobru commented 2026年01月06日 11:35:20 +01:00

@pat-s wrote in #434 (comment):

@tobru What about forgejo.ch? Would you mind handing this domain over to Forgejo?

I cannot directly answer that and will need to consult internally; this will take some time, though.

@pat-s wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-9578477: > @tobru What about forgejo.ch? Would you mind handing this domain over to Forgejo? I cannot directly answer that and will need to consult internally; this will take some time, though.

Beowulf commented 2026年01月06日 21:48:40 +01:00

@aahlenst wrote in #434 (comment):

It would probably make sense to register it.

#5

@aahlenst wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-9580049: > It would probably make sense to register it. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/5

mahlzahn commented 2026年01月15日 00:19:38 +01:00

I know at least from https://forgejo.it which offers an italian Forgejo instance (Mastodon: @opensource@mastodon.uno). I wouldn't mind about using forgejo.tld adresses, but would be nicer if they would be less impersonating with name ("Open Source & forgejo Italia") and logos (Forgejo and Open Source Initiative). Maybe we should contact them?

There are so many possible forgejo.tld domains that I do not believe we should buy them. It's not worth the effort, and quite some of them are already in use.

I know at least from https://forgejo.it which offers an italian Forgejo instance (Mastodon: @opensource@mastodon.uno). I wouldn't mind about using forgejo.tld adresses, but would be nicer if they would be less impersonating with name ("Open Source & forgejo Italia") and logos (Forgejo and Open Source Initiative). Maybe we should contact them? There are so many possible forgejo.tld domains that I do not believe we should buy them. It's not worth the effort, and quite some of them are already in use.

pat-s commented 2026年01月21日 14:11:39 +01:00

There are so many possible forgejo.tld domains that I do not believe we should buy them. It's not worth the effort, and quite some of them are already in use.

I am not sure I can relate to that opinion. Forgejo as a project has enough funding to cover the most prominent TLD to prevent this, whether or not a trademark is registered. I am not talking about acquiring all existing TLDs but there should be a somewhat clear line which ones are important and which ones rather not.
Besides the commonly known ones (com,org,dev,net,io), country-specific ones, especially for countries neigbhouring the main user base/community are important (it,ch,de,pl,fr,at).

Having alternate TLD registered for a project linking to business offers which aren't officially known/backed by the project itself feels fishy and leaves a bad taste. No matter how "good" the philosophies of the offering companies are.
On top, there is the (not so small) risk that companies which don't align well with the project philosophy acquire one¹ . Depending on their general SEO ranking and how the website is then filled, they might even show up first or second in search rankings, depending on the origin of the request.

On top, as said, this creates an implicit connection between the company and the project even though there might not even be one. This just paints a wrong picture to users on many levels.

Imagine a company, not related to the project/product itself, which would own github.org, github.dev, github.us and github.de offering services around that product. The way web search works, this would boost their site and offering a lot when somebody searches for the product name because SEO can related that sites of theirs own a(/multiple) TLDs of that very specific product which also likely has many backlinks to the actual project. And with AI that likely even becomes worse and might even result in a claim of "company XY builds product Z".

And this point is also where I see the issue with VSHN claiming forgejo.ch: If you do a search named "forgejo schweiz (or swiss)", forgejo.org only comes at fourth place. The first and second ones are VSHN only promotion sites and for people (especially stakeholders) interested in Forgejo because they heard about it, it looks a lot like VSHN is behind all of this).
Besides the fact that I haven't seen any contribution to Forgejo's source code by VSHN yet, which at least would build a more strong connection to the project rather than just offering services for it, I think such cases should be avoided in general, i.e. the project should aim to avoid such company claims and eventually even use legal actions if the wording is still not making it fully clear that there isn't a direct connection between the company and the project.

On that note: the way that such official connections usually work is to accept "sponsorships" or some kind of similar contributions in exchange for the (official) allowance to use the project for (boosted) promotional purposes. This is a completely separate discussion and I'd assume that it wouldn't fall within Forgejo's base philosophies as project anyhow. However, right now the project is effectively allowing this without any price and with this is painting a wrong picture to users and/or missing out on project funding.

---

After a quick search, here are TLD which are still unclaimed and should likely be acquired by the project:

• at
• ai
• io
• dev
• us
• sh
• app
• es

and here are some which I think should be asked to reclaim:

• ch
• it

> There are so many possible forgejo.tld domains that I do not believe we should buy them. It's not worth the effort, and quite some of them are already in use. I am not sure I can relate to that opinion. Forgejo as a project has enough funding to cover the most prominent TLD to prevent this, whether or not a trademark is registered. I am not talking about acquiring *all* existing TLDs but there should be a somewhat clear line which ones are important and which ones rather not. Besides the commonly known ones (com,org,dev,net,io), country-specific ones, especially for countries neigbhouring the main user base/community are important (it,ch,de,pl,fr,at). Having alternate TLD registered for a project linking to business offers which aren't officially known/backed by the project itself feels fishy and leaves a bad taste. No matter how "good" the philosophies of the offering companies are. On top, there is the (not so small) risk that companies which don't align well with the project philosophy acquire one[^1]. Depending on their general SEO ranking and how the website is then filled, they might even show up first or second in search rankings, depending on the origin of the request. On top, as said, this creates an implicit connection between the company and the project even though there might not even be one. This just paints a wrong picture to users on many levels. Imagine a company, not related to the project/product itself, which would own github.org, github.dev, github.us and github.de offering services around that product. The way web search works, this would boost their site and offering a lot when somebody searches for the product name because SEO can related that sites of theirs own a(/multiple) TLDs of that very specific product which also likely has many backlinks to the actual project. And with AI that likely even becomes worse and might even result in a claim of "company XY builds product Z". And this point is also where I see the issue with VSHN claiming forgejo.ch: If you do a search named "forgejo schweiz (or swiss)", forgejo.org only comes at fourth place. The first and second ones are VSHN only promotion sites and for people (especially stakeholders) interested in Forgejo because they heard about it, it looks a lot like VSHN is behind all of this). Besides the fact that I haven't seen *any* contribution to Forgejo's source code by VSHN yet, which at least would build a more strong connection to the project rather than just offering services for it, I think such cases should be avoided in general, i.e. the project should aim to avoid such company claims and eventually even use legal actions if the wording is still not making it fully clear that there isn't a direct connection between the company and the project. On that note: the way that such official connections usually work is to accept "sponsorships" or some kind of similar contributions in exchange for the (official) allowance to use the project for (boosted) promotional purposes. This is a completely separate discussion and I'd assume that it wouldn't fall within Forgejo's base philosophies as project anyhow. However, right now the project is effectively allowing this without any price and with this is painting a wrong picture to users and/or missing out on project funding. --- After a quick search, here are TLD which are still unclaimed and should likely be acquired by the project: - at - ai - io - dev - us - sh - app - es and here are some which I think should be asked to reclaim: - ch - it [^1]: Once a TLD got acquired by others, it's almost impossible to reclaim them if no trademark exists. And in the worst case, a substantial payment needs to be made to buy these from the existing owners.

fnetX commented 2026年01月21日 17:46:58 +01:00

If you do a search named "forgejo schweiz (or swiss)", forgejo.org only comes at fourth place

To me, it seems like you are describing expected search engine behaviour. Why do you expect forgejo.org to show up earlier when it obviously only includes half of your query?

Personally, if I enter a country name into a query, I am looking for something country-specific (e.g. for Forgejo consulting or hosting inside my country), and making a generic Forgejo site appear there is highly irrelevant.

I'm fine with the existing .org and .com domains that Forgejo currently registered. I think we can better use the money for other things than mass-registering domains. I don't think this is a credibility problem for Forgejo, because a project is supposed to have one canonical domain, and country-specific ones should never be considered to be official when a more generic one exists.

Also, I'll use my time for other things than this discussion. The only thing I agree to is that Forgejo offerings should indicate they are not official and link back to the project, in the spirit of a healthy collaboration.

> If you do a search named "forgejo schweiz (or swiss)", forgejo.org only comes at fourth place To me, it seems like you are describing expected search engine behaviour. Why do you expect forgejo.org to show up earlier when it obviously only includes half of your query? Personally, if I enter a country name into a query, I am looking for something country-specific (e.g. for Forgejo consulting or hosting inside my country), and making a generic Forgejo site appear there is highly irrelevant. I'm fine with the existing .org and .com domains that Forgejo currently registered. I think we can better use the money for other things than mass-registering domains. I don't think this is a credibility problem for Forgejo, because a project is supposed to have one canonical domain, and country-specific ones should never be considered to be official when a more generic one exists. Also, I'll use my time for other things than this discussion. The only thing I agree to is that Forgejo offerings should indicate they are not official and link back to the project, in the spirit of a healthy collaboration.

pat-s commented 2026年01月21日 18:27:44 +01:00

think we can better use the money for other things than mass-registering domains.

Forgejo has a budget in the ten-thousands and we're talking about a yearly costs of 100-200 here. It is a normal infrastructure-related cost point.

I think we can better use the money for other things than mass-registering domains. I don't think this is a credibility problem for Forgejo, because a project is supposed to have one canonical domain, and country-specific ones should never be considered to be official when a more generic one exists.

That's, frankly spoken, a quite naive way to look at how the internet, SEO and marketing works. The country-specific ones were just one example, the same applies for other common generic domains possibly be claimed by others.

Also, I'll use my time for other things than this discussion.

Nobody asked to take part (?)

To me, it seems like you are describing expected search engine behaviour. Why do you expect forgejo.org to show up earlier when it obviously only includes half of your query?

This was exemplary to showcase the strength of a country domain being shown before the actual app/product itself. Sometimes you don't even need to do that (e.g. duckduckgo has a switch in their search engine to prioritize local results of your country - the results there are already biased to country-specific ones and if that one is well equipped SEO-wise, it's not a long shot to be shown first even without including the country name).
Please show me which other app/product of a (high profile) country-level TLD leads you to a managed service of the product but not the product itself? And with forgejo.it even to an official instance of the product which has no direct connection to the actual organization/app itself?

I am not claiming that Forgejo should register any small country level domain in South-America or Africa, but the high-profile ones and the ones from the region where the software is mainly developed and used (Europe, German-speaking region) would be a no-brainer to me.

I don't think this is a credibility problem for Forgejo, because a project is supposed to have one canonical domain, and country-specific ones should never be considered to be official when a more generic one exists.

While I agree on this, the general existence of these and the claims from companies having no (direct) connection to the product is still something desirable. But if that's the canonical opinion of the project, then so be it. I still consider this discussion worthwhile and I don't have to agree on the final outcome (which doesn't yet exist anyways.

> think we can better use the money for other things than mass-registering domains. Forgejo has a budget in the ten-thousands and we're talking about a yearly costs of 100-200 here. It is a normal infrastructure-related cost point. > I think we can better use the money for other things than mass-registering domains. I don't think this is a credibility problem for Forgejo, because a project is supposed to have one canonical domain, and country-specific ones should never be considered to be official when a more generic one exists. That's, frankly spoken, a quite naive way to look at how the internet, SEO and marketing works. The country-specific ones were just one example, the same applies for other common generic domains possibly be claimed by others. > Also, I'll use my time for other things than this discussion. Nobody asked to take part (?) > To me, it seems like you are describing expected search engine behaviour. Why do you expect forgejo.org to show up earlier when it obviously only includes half of your query? This was exemplary to showcase the strength of a country domain being shown before the actual app/product itself. Sometimes you don't even need to do that (e.g. duckduckgo has a switch in their search engine to prioritize local results of your country - the results there are already biased to country-specific ones and if that one is well equipped SEO-wise, it's not a long shot to be shown first even without including the country name). Please show me which other app/product of a (*high profile*) country-level TLD leads you to a managed service of the product but not the product itself? And with forgejo.it even to an official instance of the product which has no direct connection to the actual organization/app itself? I am not claiming that Forgejo should register any small country level domain in South-America or Africa, but the high-profile ones and the ones from the region where the software is mainly developed and used (Europe, German-speaking region) would be a no-brainer to me. > I don't think this is a credibility problem for Forgejo, because a project is supposed to have one canonical domain, and country-specific ones should never be considered to be official when a more generic one exists. While I agree on this, the general existence of these and the claims from companies having no (direct) connection to the product is still something desirable. But if that's the canonical opinion of the project, then so be it. I still consider this discussion worthwhile and I don't have to agree on the final outcome (which doesn't yet exist anyways.

mahlzahn commented 2026年01月30日 11:42:45 +01:00

@tobru wrote in #434 (comment):

We'll certainly add the mentioned disclaimer.

To date the following disclaimer was added:

Disclaimer: VSHN and this domain, forgejo.ch, are not associated with the Forgejo project.

Thanks. Personally, I think that a link to forgejo.org would be nice to add still, e.g., when you describe what Forgejo is:

Forgejo is a robust, open-source Git service designed for collaborative software development with built-in tools for version control, code review, and project management.

@tobru wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-9577649: > We'll certainly add the mentioned disclaimer. To date the following disclaimer was added: > Disclaimer: VSHN and this domain, forgejo.ch, are not associated with the Forgejo project. Thanks. Personally, I think that a link to forgejo.org would be nice to add still, e.g., when you describe what Forgejo is: > [Forgejo](https://forgejo.org) is a robust, open-source Git service designed for collaborative software development with built-in tools for version control, code review, and project management.

steko commented 2026年02月07日 13:47:05 +01:00

@mahlzahn wrote in #434 (comment):

but would be nicer if they would be less impersonating with name ("Open Source & forgejo Italia") and logos (Forgejo and Open Source Initiative). Maybe we should contact them?

Please do try and contact them. Keep in mind that these people have an established habit of brand-jacking open source projects https://qua.name/diorama/astroturfing-the-italophone-fediverse

@mahlzahn wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-9848288: > but would be nicer if they would be less impersonating with name ("Open Source & forgejo Italia") and logos (Forgejo and Open Source Initiative). Maybe we should contact them? Please do try and contact them. Keep in mind that these people have an established habit of brand-jacking open source projects https://qua.name/diorama/astroturfing-the-italophone-fediverse

Beowulf commented 2026年05月25日 19:03:11 +02:00

@tobru wrote in #434 (comment):

I cannot directly answer that and will need to consult internally; this will take some time, though.

Any updates on this? Also pinging @jerger as the website states meisa is related/associated.

In my opinion the small notice at the bottom is not really visible. In my opinion "stealing" the name for more site visits is not the nicest behavior...

@tobru wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-9580205: > I cannot directly answer that and will need to consult internally; this will take some time, though. Any updates on this? Also pinging @jerger as the website states meisa is related/associated. In my opinion the small notice at the bottom is not really visible. In my opinion "stealing" the name for more site visits is not the nicest behavior...

jerger commented 2026年05月26日 08:31:20 +02:00

I will ask @tobru directly.

I will ask @tobru directly.

pat-s commented 2026年05月27日 07:37:45 +02:00

I have the impression that the goal is to "let grow grass over it" and hope that it gets forgotten and that VSHN isn't interested in tackling or changing this. Most likely due to marketing, as the possession of the domain is a very strong point in SEO and overall branding if you're trying to sell a product/service in your respective region.

I'd hope that Forgejo would try protect it's brand a bit more in this regard, also based on how important the "independence" idea is to project in many other areas.

In my opinion the small notice at the bottom is not really visible. In my opinion "stealing" the name for more site visits is not the nicest behavior...

I agree here. It's as small and subtle as possible while still being able to claim "it's there".

Disclaimer: I have a personal interest as a competitor here since I also offer such services and I also don't hide that this is part of the motivation to push on this here.
As a user and project contributor I am happy that such offers/services exist and more are needed. But they should not be branded through a Forgejo domain unless they are official services by the Forgejo project. I don't think there can or should be gray layer in between. While it would be a clear copyright violation if Forgejo would have one, it is still very questionable even without one, at least on the community/project side and it would have been cool/fair if VSHN would have acted proactively on their side until today.
This issue must have been discussed internally by now, also given that the website has been rebuild substantially since then. Yet nobody posted a followed up here from their side; this is quite disappointing.

I have the impression that the goal is to "let grow grass over it" and hope that it gets forgotten and that VSHN isn't interested in tackling or changing this. Most likely due to marketing, as the possession of the domain is a *very* strong point in SEO and overall branding if you're trying to sell a product/service in your respective region. I'd hope that Forgejo would try protect it's brand a bit more in this regard, also based on how important the "independence" idea is to project in many other areas. > In my opinion the small notice at the bottom is not really visible. In my opinion "stealing" the name for more site visits is not the nicest behavior... I agree here. It's as small and subtle as possible while still being able to claim "it's there". Disclaimer: I have a personal interest as a competitor here since I also offer such services and I also don't hide that this is part of the motivation to push on this here. As a user and project contributor I am happy that such offers/services exist and more are needed. But they should not be branded through a Forgejo domain unless they are official services by the Forgejo project. I don't think there can or should be gray layer in between. While it would be a clear copyright violation if Forgejo would have one, it is still very questionable even without one, at least on the community/project side and it would have been cool/fair if VSHN would have acted proactively on their side until today. This issue must have been discussed internally by now, also given that the website has been rebuild substantially since then. Yet nobody posted a followed up here from their side; this is quite disappointing.

jerger commented 2026年05月28日 15:06:09 +02:00

@pat-s I can see the competitor argument.

For a solution we will need a set of rules discussed by and agreed in the Forgejo community.

Solutions touched by this discussion are:

1. the Forgejo domain owners agree on a disclaimer & link to forgejo - agree on clean guideline ?
2. proposal to register the most important Forgejo tld's - agree on who will own / admin the domains ?
3. register a "Forgejo" trademark - agree on who will own the trademark, defend them in court, mitigate the side effects like https://www.collaboraonline.com/blog/tdf-ejects-its-core-developers/ ?

Depending on the solution considered we will need a discussion covering & solving these side effects.

In terms of "choose your battles wisely" which solution we should discuss now ? Who is willing to guide us through this process ?

@pat-s I can see the competitor argument. For a solution we will need a set of rules discussed by and agreed in the Forgejo community. Solutions touched by this discussion are: 1. the Forgejo domain owners agree on a disclaimer & link to forgejo - agree on clean guideline ? 2. proposal to register the most important Forgejo tld's - agree on who will own / admin the domains ? 3. register a "Forgejo" trademark - agree on who will own the trademark, defend them in court, mitigate the side effects like https://www.collaboraonline.com/blog/tdf-ejects-its-core-developers/ ? Depending on the solution considered we will need a discussion covering & solving these side effects. In terms of "choose your battles wisely" which solution we should discuss now ? Who is willing to guide us through this process ?

aahlenst commented 2026年05月28日 16:21:01 +02:00

@jerger wrote in #434 (comment):

In terms of "choose your battles wisely" which solution we should discuss now

A trademark gives a claim teeth. For example, dispute resolution for domain names is built around trademarks. Without it, you rely on a domain owner's goodwill.

The challenge is ownership. The people who own trademarks, domains, etc. have the keys to the kingdom, so to speak.

@jerger wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-16019819: > In terms of "choose your battles wisely" which solution we should discuss now A trademark gives a claim teeth. For example, dispute resolution for domain names is built around trademarks. Without it, you rely on a domain owner's goodwill. The challenge is ownership. The people who own trademarks, domains, etc. have the keys to the kingdom, so to speak.

pat-s commented 2026年06月22日 22:07:25 +02:00

@jerger any updates?

@jerger any updates?

jerger commented 2026年06月23日 15:21:33 +02:00

@tobru ?

@tobru ?

pat-s commented 2026年06月24日 10:35:53 +02:00

@jerger I thought you wanted to contact him directly? #434 (comment)

I will ask @tobru directly.

It is very unlikely @tobru hasn't visited this discussion since then (the last comment was 5 months ago). He is active on the platform, so him ignoring this one seems deliberate. This back-and-forth dance including "please reply" is quite cumbersome. I'd appreciate if action could be taken from the Forgejo side.

@jerger I thought you wanted to contact him directly? https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-15893021 > I will ask @tobru directly. It is very unlikely @tobru hasn't visited this discussion since then (the last comment was 5 months ago). He is [active on the platform](https://codeberg.org/tobru?tab=activity), so him ignoring this one seems deliberate. This back-and-forth dance including "please reply" is quite cumbersome. I'd appreciate if action could be taken from the Forgejo side.

mahlzahn commented 2026年06月24日 11:01:51 +02:00

To date, they added on very top a disclaimer with a link to https://forgejo.org:
image
And also further down the page they added a big box with links to https://codeberg.org and https://forgejo.org:
image
That wasn’t the case yet at beginning of June: https://web.archive.org/web/20260602153741/https://www.forgejo.ch/, but with this improvements, I believe that the main concerns are well addressed.

To date, they added on very top a disclaimer with a link to https://forgejo.org:  And also further down the page they added a big box with links to https://codeberg.org and https://forgejo.org:  That wasn’t the case yet at beginning of June: https://web.archive.org/web/20260602153741/https://www.forgejo.ch/, but with this improvements, I believe that the main concerns are well addressed.

aahlenst commented 2026年06月24日 11:08:37 +02:00

@mahlzahn wrote in #434 (comment):

I believe that the main concerns are well addressed.

I would find it less objectionable if they redirected to codey.ch without using the Forgejo logo and colours. Right now, it comes across as a Forgejo- or at least Forgejo-associated service. And that's bad.

Domain-ownership is a different question.

@mahlzahn wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-17992634: > I believe that the main concerns are well addressed. I would find it less objectionable if they redirected to codey.ch *without* using the Forgejo logo and colours. Right now, it comes across as a Forgejo- or at least Forgejo-associated service. And that's bad. Domain-ownership is a different question.

Beowulf commented 2026年06月24日 11:12:24 +02:00

@aahlenst wrote in #434 (comment):

Domain-ownership is a different question.

I would also prefer it, if the domain would be transfered. But at the moment it seems that they don't want to do it voluntarily.

---

But from the side of an enduser I always find companies doing such stuff ((ab)using names of other projects) shady and I avoid them...

@aahlenst wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-17992892: > Domain-ownership is a different question. I would also prefer it, if the domain would be transfered. But at the moment it seems that they don't want to do it voluntarily. *** But from the side of an enduser I always find companies doing such stuff ((ab)using names of other projects) shady and I avoid them...

Beowulf commented 2026年06月24日 11:13:18 +02:00

@mahlzahn wrote in #434 (comment):

That wasn’t the case yet at beginning of June

Which makes it in my opinion even worse. So they see this (what I also expect), but they refuse to react or give a statement.

@mahlzahn wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-17992634: > That wasn’t the case yet at beginning of June Which makes it in my opinion even worse. So they see this (what I also expect), but they refuse to react or give a statement.

aahlenst commented 2026年06月24日 11:23:20 +02:00

@Beowulf wrote in #434 (comment):

I would also prefer it, if the domain would be transfered. But at the moment it seems that they don't want to do it voluntarily.

Would it be good if the domain was trasferred? Of course. But if it isn't done voluntarily, there's not that much the project can do.

Should there be rules around logo usage and name usage, backed by trademarks and processes around what should happen in case of a violation? I think so. But so far, the interest by the community was very low.

@Beowulf wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-17993009: > I would also prefer it, if the domain would be transfered. But at the moment it seems that they don't want to do it voluntarily. Would it be good if the domain was trasferred? Of course. But if it isn't done voluntarily, there's not that much the project can do. Should there be rules around logo usage and name usage, backed by trademarks and processes around what should happen in case of a violation? I think so. But so far, the interest by the community was very low.

pat-s commented 2026年06月24日 16:31:58 +02:00

That wasn’t the case yet at beginning of June: https://web.archive.org/web/20260602153741/https://www.forgejo.ch/, but with this improvements, I believe that the main concerns are well addressed.

Hadn't seen this before. A step into the right direction but, as pointed out by others, not yet sufficient.

But from the side of an enduser I always find companies doing such stuff ((ab)using names of other projects) shady and I avoid them...

That's also my view here, which is also why I kept pushing here to not let this fall under the table. I find this behavior quite disrespectful, and it becomes even worse the more time passes and one realizes how they (silently) act without taking a stand in this discussion here. There were multiple possibilities until now to "get this straight" but all were (apparently) skipped on purpose.
(Putting this into contrast to their overall self-marketing on social media leaves a very bad after taste.)

So, moving forward: I am aware that there are no legal measures here as Forgejo isn't trademarked (please fix this!). However, there is still the option that a FJ official reaches out to them officially by mail to clarify this issue, including clear timelines.
If that stays unanswered as well, I'd propose to reach out to the press, so this case gets a little attention outside of this issue, which only has a limited audience.

Overall, I am interested in making sure that such acting isn't resulting in a (long-term) positive economic net effect, which is only possible if potential customers are being made aware of this.

> That wasn’t the case yet at beginning of June: https://web.archive.org/web/20260602153741/https://www.forgejo.ch/, but with this improvements, I believe that the main concerns are well addressed. Hadn't seen this before. A step into the right direction but, as pointed out by others, not yet sufficient. > But from the side of an enduser I always find companies doing such stuff ((ab)using names of other projects) shady and I avoid them... That's also my view here, which is also why I kept pushing here to not let this fall under the table. I find this behavior quite disrespectful, and it becomes even worse the more time passes and one realizes how they (silently) act without taking a stand in this discussion here. There were multiple possibilities until now to "get this straight" but all were (apparently) skipped on purpose. (Putting this into contrast to their overall self-marketing on social media leaves a very bad after taste.) So, moving forward: I am aware that there are no legal measures here as Forgejo isn't trademarked (please fix this!). However, there is still the option that a FJ official reaches out to them officially by mail to clarify this issue, including clear timelines. If that stays unanswered as well, I'd propose to reach out to the press, so this case gets a little attention outside of this issue, which only has a limited audience. Overall, I am interested in making sure that such acting isn't resulting in a (long-term) positive economic net effect, which is only possible if potential customers are being made aware of this.

tobru commented 2026年06月24日 16:44:04 +02:00

I apologize for the lack of silence from my side here, it literally fell under my table. The discussion here triggered the update of the content to show appreciation towards the project and push traffic to it. The change only happened last night; I haven't come around since then to provide this information here.

PS: Donate links are now correct, they were wrong in the previous published version.

I apologize for the lack of silence from my side here, it literally fell under my table. The discussion here triggered the update of the content to show appreciation towards the project and push traffic to it. The change only happened last night; I haven't come around since then to provide this information here. PS: Donate links are now correct, they were wrong in the previous published version.

aahlenst commented 2026年06月24日 17:19:07 +02:00

@pat-s wrote in #434 (comment):

Forgejo isn't trademarked (please fix this!)

#5 has the open questions. Without a trademark holder and funds, nothing can happen.

You are a part of the Forgejo community and you seem to care about it, which is great. Would you take the lead? Or start authoring brand guidelines? I think it is not good if people or companies are expected to behave in a certain way without guidance being available. It took me a while to find https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/branding/README.md and it is not particularly helpful.

a FJ official

Does such a role exist? There doesn't seem to be a team that matches that description, either.

@pat-s wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-18005135: > Forgejo isn't trademarked (please fix this!) https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/5 has the open questions. Without a trademark holder and funds, nothing can happen. You are a part of the Forgejo community and you seem to care about it, which is great. Would you take the lead? Or start authoring brand guidelines? I think it is not good if people or companies are expected to behave in a certain way without guidance being available. It took me a while to find https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/branding/README.md and it is not particularly helpful. > a FJ official Does such a role exist? There doesn't seem to be a [team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/TEAMS.md) that matches that description, either.

jerger commented 2026年06月25日 07:02:56 +02:00

@pat-s wrote in #434 (comment):

@jerger I thought you wanted to contact him directly? #434 (comment)

I will ask @tobru directly.

I did and got a constructive feeling.

But being asked to act as man in the middle instead of talking directly feels really wrong - so I reject your request.

From my point of view every forgejo.* domain feels shady. That is true for uncommercial (as forgejo.de) same as commercial (as forgejo.ch).

But accusing competitors without organizing a widely agreed "policy how to use the name Forgejo" and point only to one party feels shady also. A policy has to mean the same for all.

@pat-s wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-17991923: > @jerger I thought you wanted to contact him directly? #434 (comment) > > > I will ask @tobru directly. I did and got a constructive feeling. But being asked to act as man in the middle instead of talking directly feels really wrong - so I reject your request. From my point of view every forgejo.* domain feels shady. That is true for uncommercial (as forgejo.de) same as commercial (as forgejo.ch). But accusing competitors without organizing a widely agreed "policy how to use the name Forgejo" and point only to one party feels shady also. A policy has to mean the same for all.

pat-s commented 2026年06月26日 08:52:44 +02:00

You are a part of the Forgejo community and you seem to care about it, which is great. Would you take the lead? Or start authoring brand guidelines? I think it is not good if people or companies are expected to behave in a certain way without guidance being available. It took me a while to find https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/branding/README.md and it is not particularly helpful.

I think I am the wrong person for this and I also don't think the Forgejo project wants to see me do this, given other past discussions about philosophical/governance topics.
I'd really see somebody else do this for many reasons, but if nobody wants to, I'd like to see at least an official agreement that the project is OK with this before I put work into that.

In this specific issue I am also biased as I am directly affected with my company by the acting described, and I think it's better if somebody without any stakes in that would take a lead here.
It's not a sexy topic overall of course and hence nobody likely wants to do it/start it and most people in the community don't care as they only care about the resulting (code) product.

But being asked to act as man in the middle instead of talking directly feels really wrong - so I reject your request.

My request? You proposed to initiate a discussion (without me asking for it), see also your own quote.

But accusing competitors without organizing a widely agreed "policy how to use the name Forgejo" and point only to one party feels shady also. A policy has to mean the same for all.

I disagree here. I am neither responsible for such one nor should there be any requirement to come up with a policy draft out of nowhere just to be able to call this out (or having this enforced/changed). That reasoning is quite strange to me but maybe you meant it differently than it sounds here?
On top, aside from Forgejo's values, the general take of using country-specific TLD to promote a paid extension of a product that isn't directly affiliated with a project will never be a "great move", even if you add a banner of some sort.
In other economic fields creators of certain products already get legal issues if their package coloring is "too similar" to the one of a competitor - such a thing as owning a subdomain would not even be in scope. (and yes, I know that this is all based on the existence of trademarks - but only on the effective legal side, not on the moral/fairness side).

I think the shady acting has already been agreed on in this thread by multiple people. On top, VSHN could have actively contributed to this discussion here to enhance transparency, change things and move on. Yet, they didn't and chose to go a more hidden route. And yes, I think having this discussion in the open is the right way as opposed to private emails or talks nobody can refer to.

I apologize for the lack of silence from my side here, it literally fell under my table. The discussion here triggered the update of the content to show appreciation towards the project and push traffic to it. The change only happened last night; I haven't come around since then to provide this information here.

@tobru Besides the banners, which make things now much clearer now in their second+ iteration, the main discussion point is the domain. Can you please comment on this and why you don't wanna release it?

> You are a part of the Forgejo community and you seem to care about it, which is great. Would you take the lead? Or start authoring brand guidelines? I think it is not good if people or companies are expected to behave in a certain way without guidance being available. It took me a while to find https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/branding/README.md and it is not particularly helpful. I think I am the wrong person for this and I also don't think the Forgejo project wants to see me do this, given other past discussions about philosophical/governance topics. I'd really see somebody else do this for many reasons, but if nobody wants to, I'd like to see at least an official agreement that the project is OK with this before I put work into that. In this specific issue I am also biased as I am directly affected with my company by the acting described, and I think it's better if somebody without any stakes in that would take a lead here. It's not a sexy topic overall of course and hence nobody likely wants to do it/start it and most people in the community don't care as they only care about the resulting (code) product. > But being asked to act as man in the middle instead of talking directly feels really wrong - so I reject your request. My request? You proposed to initiate a discussion (without me asking for it), see also your own quote. > But accusing competitors without organizing a widely agreed "policy how to use the name Forgejo" and point only to one party feels shady also. A policy has to mean the same for all. I disagree here. I am neither responsible for such one nor should there be any requirement to come up with a policy draft out of nowhere just to be able to call this out (or having this enforced/changed). That reasoning is quite strange to me but maybe you meant it differently than it sounds here? On top, aside from Forgejo's values, the general take of using country-specific TLD to promote a paid extension of a product that isn't directly affiliated with a project will never be a "great move", even if you add a banner of some sort. In other economic fields creators of certain products already get legal issues if their package coloring is "too similar" to the one of a competitor - such a thing as owning a subdomain would not even be in scope. (and yes, I know that this is all based on the existence of trademarks - but only on the effective legal side, not on the moral/fairness side). I think the shady acting has already been agreed on in this thread by multiple people. On top, VSHN could have actively contributed to this discussion here to enhance transparency, change things and move on. Yet, they didn't and chose to go a more hidden route. And yes, I think having this discussion in the open is the right way as opposed to private emails or talks nobody can refer to. > I apologize for the lack of silence from my side here, it literally fell under my table. The discussion here triggered the update of the content to show appreciation towards the project and push traffic to it. The change only happened last night; I haven't come around since then to provide this information here. @tobru Besides the banners, which make things now much clearer now in their second+ iteration, the main discussion point is the domain. Can you please comment on this and why you don't wanna release it?

tobru commented 2026年06月26日 09:50:13 +02:00

Besides the banners, which make things now much clearer now in their second+ iteration, the main discussion point is the domain. Can you please comment on this and why you don't wanna release it?

Thanks for raising this, and thanks as well for acknowledging the improvements around the banners.

On the domain itself, we currently do not plan to transfer it. We use forgejo.ch to promote Forgejo in Switzerland and to help make the project more visible to Swiss users and organizations. Our intention is to support the Forgejo ecosystem, not to create confusion or present ourselves as the official project.

We do understand the concern around clarity and attribution. That is why we added the banners and disclaimers, and we are open to concrete suggestions if anything on the site still feels ambiguous or misleading.

From our side, the important point is that the site clearly communicates its relationship to the Forgejo project. If there are specific changes that would make this clearer while still allowing us to continue supporting Forgejo locally, we are happy to discuss them.

> Besides the banners, which make things now much clearer now in their second+ iteration, the main discussion point is the domain. Can you please comment on this and why you don't wanna release it? Thanks for raising this, and thanks as well for acknowledging the improvements around the banners. On the domain itself, we currently do not plan to transfer it. We use forgejo.ch to promote Forgejo in Switzerland and to help make the project more visible to Swiss users and organizations. Our intention is to support the Forgejo ecosystem, not to create confusion or present ourselves as the official project. We do understand the concern around clarity and attribution. That is why we added the banners and disclaimers, and we are open to concrete suggestions if anything on the site still feels ambiguous or misleading. From our side, the important point is that the site clearly communicates its relationship to the Forgejo project. If there are specific changes that would make this clearer while still allowing us to continue supporting Forgejo locally, we are happy to discuss them.

Beowulf commented 2026年06月26日 11:20:29 +02:00

@tobru wrote in #434 (comment):

We use forgejo.ch to promote Forgejo in Switzerland and to help make the project more visible to Swiss users and organizations.

Wait, so you don't understand yourself what the website is about?
It does not promote forgejo, it promotes your service 🤔

If it should promote forgejo it would redirect to forgejo.org ...

@tobru wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-18094826: > We use forgejo.ch to promote Forgejo in Switzerland and to help make the project more visible to Swiss users and organizations. Wait, so you don't understand yourself what the website is about? It does not promote forgejo, it promotes your service 🤔 If it should promote forgejo it would redirect to forgejo.org ...

aahlenst commented 2026年06月26日 11:25:52 +02:00

@pat-s wrote in #434 (comment):

I think I am the wrong person for this and I also don't think the Forgejo project wants to see me do this, given other past discussions about philosophical/governance topics. I'd really see somebody else do this for many reasons, but if nobody wants to, I'd like to see at least an official agreement that the project is OK with this before I put work into that.

Disagreements are unavoidable. There are too many people from too many backgrounds. But I don't think that's important. What's important is that there is somebody who organizes a discussion and moves it forward, if necessary. That you are potentially biased isn't a blocker for me, because you disclosed it and the community ultimately votes on any proposal anyway. If you want to hear that nobody objects, start a new discussion, point people in the development chat to it and wait for reactions.

https://www.commonhaus.org/policies/trademark-policy/ can serve as an inspiration or starting point. At the end of the document, there's an attribution section with even more inspiration. If the big software foundations (ASF, Eclipse, ...) are good at one thing it's trademarks and brand guidelines.

If someone wants to start the trademark registration, I'm willing to help.

@pat-s wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/434#issuecomment-18093050: > I think I am the wrong person for this and I also don't think the Forgejo project wants to see me do this, given other past discussions about philosophical/governance topics. I'd really see somebody else do this for many reasons, but if nobody wants to, I'd like to see at least an official agreement that the project is OK with this before I put work into that. Disagreements are unavoidable. There are too many people from too many backgrounds. But I don't think that's important. What's important is that there is somebody who organizes a discussion and moves it forward, if necessary. That you are potentially biased isn't a blocker for me, because you disclosed it and the community ultimately votes on any proposal anyway. If you want to hear that nobody objects, start a new discussion, point people in the development chat to it and wait for reactions. https://www.commonhaus.org/policies/trademark-policy/ can serve as an inspiration or starting point. At the end of the document, there's an attribution section with even more inspiration. If the big software foundations (ASF, Eclipse, ...) are good at one thing it's trademarks and brand guidelines. If someone wants to start the trademark registration, I'm willing to help.

pat-s commented 2026年06月26日 18:22:59 +02:00

We use forgejo.ch to promote Forgejo in Switzerland and to help make the project more visible to Swiss users and organizations.
Our intention is to support the Forgejo ecosystem, not to create confusion or present ourselves as the official project.

This reads like a well-iterated enterprise reply.

You don't support the ecosystem by using a brand-named domain to sell managed services only you profit from. Supporting the ecosystem means to be active in development, donate (substantially) or offer services for free so that users can use "the ecosystem" in ways that they can't on a individual base. AFAICS none of this applies, i.e. you only offer managed services of various sort.

Yet, it's likely that you are aware of this and the main goal is to find a way to calm the discussion down while still staying the domain owner. It's not a cool move - that's my honest opinion on it.

On the domain itself, we currently do not plan to transfer it.

Alright, that clarifies the state. I'll see where to go with that and what others think can be potential next steps.

> We use forgejo.ch to promote Forgejo in Switzerland and to help make the project more visible to Swiss users and organizations. > Our intention is to support the Forgejo ecosystem, not to create confusion or present ourselves as the official project. This reads like a well-iterated enterprise reply. You don't support the ecosystem by using a brand-named domain to sell managed services only you profit from. Supporting the ecosystem means to be active in development, donate (substantially) or offer services *for free* so that users can use "the ecosystem" in ways that they can't on a individual base. AFAICS none of this applies, i.e. you only offer managed services of various sort. Yet, it's likely that you are aware of this and the main goal is to find a way to calm the discussion down while still staying the domain owner. It's not a cool move - that's my honest opinion on it. > On the domain itself, we currently do not plan to transfer it. Alright, that clarifies the state. I'll see where to go with that and what others think can be potential next steps.