forgejo/discussions
49
43

Relicensing Forgejo as copyleft #6

Closed
opened 2023年03月02日 10:18:09 +01:00 by Ghost · 25 comments

Followup of forgejo/meta#86

An extensive discussion took place today on Matrix regarding licensing Forgejo under a copyleft license.

A proposal made by both myself and @dachary was the following:

  • Forgejo as a whole is licensed under AGPLv3+
  • Files which originate from Gitea remain MIT-licensed, so bug fixes and Gitea-only features can be contributed back.
  • A work unique to Forgejo (features, documentation etc.) can be included as long as its license is compatible with AGPLv3+
  • Every file has a license header specifying the license. Contributors agree to license their code under the license of the files they modify with the DCO.

It would be good to move the discussion here for posterity and to gather opinions from more people.

Followup of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/86 --- [An extensive discussion took place today on Matrix](https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$rNftuK95ZzYt5Uew8nYs4o3Bdo8bKIBfdv-1yII3BXU) regarding licensing Forgejo under a copyleft license. A proposal made by both myself and @dachary was the following: - Forgejo as a whole is licensed under [AGPLv3+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Package_Data_Exchange) - Files which originate from Gitea remain MIT-licensed, so bug fixes and Gitea-only features can be contributed back. - A work unique to Forgejo (features, documentation etc.) can be included as long as its license is compatible with AGPLv3+ - Every file has a license header specifying the license. Contributors agree to license their code under the license of the files they modify with the [DCO](https://developercertificate.org/). It would be good to move the discussion here for posterity and to gather opinions from more people.

Mixing licensing creates headache and at times inability to contribute back (because they don't get approval in the first place) for some people who have to get approvals from legal departments that shy away from copyleft licenses. Copyleft licenses help most when a project is distinct from other available solutions, however, gittea and forgejo are existing implementations in a crowded space. Being that we want more federated forges than less, it would be nice if forgejo would stay with MIT as that makes it easy for others to experiment and run more interoperable forges, with the hope that these folks soft-fork in a similar way to how forgejo forked from gittea.

Mixing licensing creates headache and at times inability to contribute back (because they don't get approval in the first place) for some people who have to get approvals from legal departments that shy away from copyleft licenses. Copyleft licenses help most when a project is distinct from other available solutions, however, gittea and forgejo are existing implementations in a crowded space. Being that we want more federated forges than less, it would be nice if forgejo would stay with MIT as that makes it easy for others to experiment and run more interoperable forges, with the hope that these folks soft-fork in a similar way to how forgejo forked from gittea.

Thanks for expressing your opinion. Not an easy thing to do knowing most of the participants in the discussion are in favor of Copyleft.

@delvh took the time to write down why they also prefer permissive licensing. Do you agree with this reasoning? Do you have more evidence or a different rationale supporting your opinion?

Thanks for expressing your opinion. Not an easy thing to do knowing most of the participants in the discussion are in favor of Copyleft. @delvh [took the time to write down](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/86#issuecomment-819747) why they also prefer permissive licensing. Do you agree with this reasoning? Do you have more evidence or a different rationale supporting your opinion?

I think that sums it up. I also favor copyleft in theory, but over the years I've seen that in practice it makes it harder for people who want to support communities by proliferating awesome projects to do so.

I think that sums it up. I also favor copyleft in theory, but over the years I've seen that in practice it makes it harder for people who want to support communities by proliferating awesome projects to do so.

@pdxjohnny can you give an example that illustrates how it makes it harder?

Full disclosure: I'm strongly in favor of copyleft. I have been president of the Free Software Foundation France for over fifteen years and it goes with the territory. But I also think very important in an inclusive community that all voices are heard before a decision is made.

@pdxjohnny can you give an example that illustrates how it makes it harder? Full disclosure: I'm strongly in favor of copyleft. I have been president of the Free Software Foundation France for over fifteen years and it goes with the territory. But I also think very important in an inclusive community that all voices are heard before a decision is made.

I cannot, my legal department is nice about these things but I've only heard issues secondhand from others. I appreciate your response :)

I cannot, my legal department is nice about these things but I've only heard issues secondhand from others. I appreciate your response :)

TL;DR: Forgejo should accept copyleft dependencies instead of excluding them. git is copyleft, Forgejo users & developers have no issue with that. But changing the Forgejo license on a matter of principle is a lot of work for no reward, let's not do that. Let's wait for the first valuable copyleft contribution. In the meantime the Forgejo community can work out an agreement that copyleft dependencies are welcome.

permissive vs copyleft

In the Free Software world there are two kinds of licensing practices:

  • Permissive licenses that allow for inclusion in proprietary software
  • Copyleft licenses when the author does not want their work to be part of a proprietary software

There is no consensus among Free Software authors about which one is best and this difference of opinion is not going to be resolved any time soon.

Forgejo and git

  • Forgejo is published under a permissive license.
  • git is published under a copyleft license.

Since both Forgejo and git work hand in hand, it is fair to assume that whoever uses Forgejo can use and install copyleft software. If there was any kind of philosophical, practical or legal issue with copyleft software, they would not be able to use git.

accepting copyleft contributions

Forgejo should accept contributions from authors who publish their work under a copyleft license. It would not be right for a project who has Free Software as one of its core values to exclude copyleft authors from participating.

agreement and implementation

There currently is no copyleft work proposed for inclusion in Forgejo and therefore no time pressure. An agreement could be proposed by which Forgejo will accept contributions under a copyleft license going forward, without going into implementation details. Given that a large majority of Forgejo community members are in favor of copyleft, it should not be controversial.

When a copylefted dependency is proposed for inclusion in Forgejo for the first time, the implementation of this agreement can be worked on. It is not trivial as it requires changes in the release process, the documentation and a significant effort to communicate the decision and its consequences. But it will have the practical benefit brought by the new copylefted dependency as a reward.

TL;DR: **Forgejo should accept copyleft dependencies instead of excluding them.** git is copyleft, Forgejo users & developers have no issue with that. But changing the Forgejo license on a matter of principle is a lot of work for no reward, let's not do that. Let's wait for the first valuable copyleft contribution. In the meantime the Forgejo community can work out an agreement that copyleft dependencies are welcome. ## permissive vs copyleft In the Free Software world there are two kinds of licensing practices: * Permissive licenses that allow for inclusion in proprietary software * Copyleft licenses when the author does not want their work to be part of a proprietary software There is no consensus among Free Software authors about which one is best and this difference of opinion is not going to be resolved any time soon. ## Forgejo and git * Forgejo is published under a permissive license. * git is published under a copyleft license. Since both Forgejo and git work hand in hand, it is fair to assume that whoever uses Forgejo can use and install copyleft software. **If there was any kind of philosophical, practical or legal issue with copyleft software, they would not be able to use git.** ## accepting copyleft contributions Forgejo should accept contributions from authors who publish their work under a copyleft license. **It would not be right for a project who has Free Software as one of its [core values](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/MISSION.md#values) to exclude copyleft authors from participating.** ## agreement and implementation There currently is no copyleft work proposed for inclusion in Forgejo and therefore no time pressure. **An agreement could be proposed by which Forgejo will accept contributions under a copyleft license going forward, without going into implementation details.** Given that a large majority of Forgejo community members are in favor of copyleft, it should not be controversial. When a copylefted dependency is proposed for inclusion in Forgejo for the first time, the implementation of this agreement can be worked on. It is not trivial as it requires changes in the release process, the documentation and a significant effort to communicate the decision and its consequences. But it will have the practical benefit brought by the new copylefted dependency as a reward.

I have published all my recent work on Forgejo under MIT. Some of it because they are part of a larger codebase that is already MIT:

But also entirely new work. My preference would have been copyleft but I did not want to interfere with this discussion:

As a general rule I prefer to publish my work under a copyleft license. As I'm going to resume working on the F3 driver for Forgejo, it would be great if it could be accepted as a copyleft contribution.

I understand why the reference implementation of F3 itself is under a permissive license and will stay under a permissive license, because it is intended to be included in all and every codebase regardless of their license. But the driver for Forgejo, which is an adapter for the F3 implementation, is a significant amount of work and could be under a copyleft license.

If noone else is motivated, I could propose an agreement in the governance issue tracker as described above.

I have published all my recent work on Forgejo under MIT. Some of it because they are part of a larger codebase that is already MIT: * https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/act/commit/bc24ebba1bceacf5c2d890caef9ad824ad9d2f80 * https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/commits/branch/main But also entirely new work. My preference would have been copyleft but I did not want to interfere with this discussion: * https://code.forgejo.org/actions/forgejo-release * https://code.forgejo.org/actions/setup-forgejo * https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-container-image As a general rule I prefer to publish my work under a copyleft license. As I'm going to resume working on the F3 driver for Forgejo, it would be great if it could be accepted as a copyleft contribution. I understand why the reference implementation of F3 itself is under a permissive license and will stay under a permissive license, because it is intended to be included in all and every codebase regardless of their license. But the driver for Forgejo, which is an adapter for the F3 implementation, is [a significant amount of work](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/commit/a57491b26f0dcf4640de068035a53467f76a6a6e) and could be under a copyleft license. If noone else is motivated, I could propose an agreement in the governance issue tracker as described above.

Since there seems to be a consensus to move in the proposed direction, I drafted a blog post explaining the decision. In chronological order it will be published after the decision is made. But writing it down before proposing the decision helped me clarify my ideas. The timeline could be:

I would very much welcome input from people who are opposed to copyleft. There are two new arguments in favor of copyleft that they have not yet responded to:

  • Forgejo & Git are distributed together and Git is copyleft, therefore there is no legal or philosophical obstacle to copyleft from Forgejo users
  • Git is one of the most active and successful Free Software in existence, therefore copyleft is not a obstacle to wide adoption
Since there seems to be a consensus to move in the proposed direction, I drafted a [blog post](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/204) explaining the decision. In chronological order it will be published **after** the decision is made. But writing it down **before** proposing the decision helped me clarify my ideas. The timeline could be: * Discuss [the blog post](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/204) content * Propose a decision in the https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance repository (reusing the content of the blog post mostly) * Wait for feedback during another two weeks * Document the decision I would very much welcome input from people who are opposed to copyleft. There are two new arguments in favor of copyleft that they have not yet responded to: * Forgejo & Git are distributed together and Git is copyleft, therefore there is no legal or philosophical obstacle to copyleft from Forgejo users * Git is one of the most active and successful Free Software in existence, therefore copyleft is not a obstacle to wide adoption

I have the feeling that only mentioning copyleft and comparing with git (which is licensed under the GPL-2) is a dangerous approximation (since the copyleft discussion has been revolving around AGPL).

I am sure that a couple of companies blindly follow Google guidelines (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty/licenses) where AGPL is banned, while GPL is possible (and from what I recall most arguments against the Forgejo license change would not apply with the GPL).

It would probably make sense to make a complete list of the acceptable licenses for Forgejo (or defer to some authority - probably not Google 😜 ).

I have the feeling that only mentioning `copyleft` and comparing with git (which is licensed under the `GPL-2`) is a dangerous approximation (since the copyleft discussion has been revolving around `AGPL`). I am sure that a couple of companies blindly follow Google guidelines (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty/licenses) where AGPL is banned, while GPL is possible (and from what I recall most arguments against the Forgejo license change would not apply with the GPL). It would probably make sense to make a complete list of the acceptable licenses for Forgejo (or defer to some authority - probably not Google 😜 ).

I fully agree that the debate between AGPL and GPL is going to exist with opposing opinions within the group of people in favor of copyleft. This is actually my main incentive for only mentioning "copyleft" and not dive into details right away.

Would people in favor of copyleft and AGPL prefer to stick to a permissive license rather than moving to GPL? I do not think so. Or if they do I can't see any rational basis to do so. Welcoming copyleft is more inclusive than sticking to a permissive license, regardless of the choice of the copyleft license.

Postponing the debate on the particular copyleft license when and if the Forgejo community agrees to embrace copyleft separates the two debates instead of conflating them.

  • Step 1: debate between permissive and copyleft
  • Step 2: debate between GPL or AGPL (or another copyleft license)

Or maybe you see a reason that I don't for the two steps to happen simultaneously?

I fully agree that the debate between AGPL and GPL is going to exist with opposing opinions within the group of people in favor of copyleft. This is actually my main incentive for only mentioning "copyleft" and not dive into details right away. Would people in favor of copyleft and AGPL prefer to stick to a permissive license rather than moving to GPL? I do not think so. Or if they do I can't see any rational basis to do so. Welcoming copyleft is more inclusive than sticking to a permissive license, regardless of the choice of the copyleft license. Postponing the debate on the particular copyleft license when and if the Forgejo community agrees to embrace copyleft separates the two debates instead of conflating them. * Step 1: debate between permissive and copyleft * Step 2: debate between GPL or AGPL (or another copyleft license) Or maybe you see a reason that I don't for the two steps to happen simultaneously?

Since the blog post is not about choosing a license for Forgejo, but rather accepting new licenses for contributions, I would see the process like this:

  • Step 1: debate to accept non-controversial copyleft licenses (GPL, MPL...)
  • Step 2: debate to accept more controversial copyleft licenses (AGPL)

And add a "further work" in the blog post, indicating that accepting stronger (and more controversial) copyleft licenses is being discussed.

Since the blog post is not about choosing a license for Forgejo, but rather accepting new licenses for contributions, I would see the process like this: - Step 1: debate to accept non-controversial copyleft licenses (GPL, MPL...) - Step 2: debate to accept more controversial copyleft licenses (AGPL) And add a "further work" in the blog post, indicating that accepting stronger (and more controversial) copyleft licenses is being discussed.

I added the following paragraph in hope it reflects what you suggest. Please tell if I'm missing the point you're trying to make.

The choice of a copyleft license is a delicate balance and it is expected that different opinions will be voiced within the Forgejo community. There already were debates comparing the merits of the AGPL which was designed for online services and the GPL which was designed before the internet age. The least controversial choice would be to choose the same license as Git since there already is a de facto consensus because all developers and users agree on it.

The wording needs work and I'll revise it if the general idea looks good to you.

I added the following paragraph in hope it reflects what you suggest. Please tell if I'm missing the point you're trying to make. > The choice of a copyleft license is a delicate balance and it is expected that different opinions will be voiced within the Forgejo community. There already were debates comparing the merits of the [AGPL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License) which was designed for online services and the [GPL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) which was designed before the internet age. The least controversial choice would be to choose the same license as Git since there already is a de facto consensus because all developers and users agree on it. The wording needs work and I'll revise it if the general idea looks good to you.

I believe there is enough material and the discussion has matured enough to propose an agreement in the governance repository. I created a pull request by collating bits and pieces from this discussion and the draft blog post at forgejo/governance#20

I believe there is enough material and the discussion has matured enough to propose an agreement in the governance repository. I created a pull request by collating bits and pieces from this discussion and the draft blog post at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/20

@foster-hangdaan I saw you are not in favor of copyleft for Forgejo. I would really like if you could explain why in your own words. As you can see the majority is leaning towards copyleft and your contribution is unlikely to change this balance. But I hope you will take the time to voice your opinion anyway.

@foster-hangdaan I saw you are not in favor of copyleft for Forgejo. I would really like if you could explain why in your own words. As you can see the majority is leaning towards copyleft and your contribution is unlikely to change this balance. But I hope you will take the time to voice your opinion anyway.

Followup of forgejo/meta#86

An extensive discussion took place today on Matrix regarding licensing Forgejo under a copyleft license.

A proposal made by both myself and @dachary was the following:

  • Forgejo as a whole is licensed under AGPLv3+
  • Files which originate from Gitea remain MIT-licensed, so bug fixes and Gitea-only features can be contributed back.
  • A work unique to Forgejo (features, documentation etc.) can be included as long as its license is compatible with AGPLv3+
  • Every file has a license header specifying the license. Contributors agree to license their code under the license of the files they modify with the DCO.

It would be good to move the discussion here for posterity and to gather opinions from more people.

That much is completely true. As I point out here, Forĝejo is now and has been an AGPL product since 15 April - complete citations with links are there.

what isn't clear, is that this is a direct quote of Loïc Dachary above that appears to be someone else citing him... No matter, it's still accurate; three community voted and selected the AGPL.

That's really all I think is prtinent fur us all to remember, except there's specific language proposed fire a blog post that states that, "GPL is the consensual choice" -consensual ? That actually doesn't make much sense. Perhaps "default" in the context of that proposed blog's sentence was what the author was reaching for, and of course, the correct license being referred to in that passage is the AGPL3 and not the GPL - Forĝejo is, after all, the type of Hosted and SaaS based product that the AGPL was specifically designed to protect for the community at large...

And it's why the community itself actually chose the GNU Afero license as the license that Forĝejo now uses.

I hope that helps! 🥰

⛵

.

> Followup of https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/86 > > --- > > [An extensive discussion took place today on Matrix](https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$rNftuK95ZzYt5Uew8nYs4o3Bdo8bKIBfdv-1yII3BXU) regarding licensing Forgejo under a copyleft license. > > A proposal made by both myself and @dachary was the following: > > - Forgejo as a whole is licensed under [AGPLv3+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Package_Data_Exchange) > - Files which originate from Gitea remain MIT-licensed, so bug fixes and Gitea-only features can be contributed back. > - A work unique to Forgejo (features, documentation etc.) can be included as long as its license is compatible with AGPLv3+ > - Every file has a license header specifying the license. Contributors agree to license their code under the license of the files they modify with the [DCO](https://developercertificate.org/). > > > It would be good to move the discussion here for posterity and to gather opinions from more people. That much is completely true. As [I point out here](https://public.mitra.social/post/0187ada2-aa40-c45c-8126-c0eca1a4f2a1), Forĝejo is now and has been an AGPL product since 15 April - complete citations with links are there. what isn't clear, is that this is a direct quote of Loïc Dachary above that appears to be someone else citing him... No matter, it's still accurate; three community voted and selected the AGPL. That's really all I think is prtinent fur us all to remember, except there's specific language proposed fire a blog post that states that, "GPL is the **consensual** choice" -consensual ? That actually doesn't make much sense. Perhaps "default" in the context of that proposed blog's sentence was what the author was reaching for, and of course, the correct license being referred to in that passage is the AGPL3 and not the GPL - Forĝejo is, after all, the type of Hosted and SaaS based product that the AGPL was specifically designed to protect for the community at large... And it's why the community itself actually chose the GNU Afero license as the license that Forĝejo now uses. I hope that helps! 🥰 ⛵ .

Forĝejo is now and has been an AGPL product since 15 April...

You are mistaken, Forgejo is licensed under MIT.

Please stop spreading this information. It is distracting, counter productive and could be confusing to someone reading this thread. Overall it has a negative impact on the Forgejo project. Could you please join the Reconciliation chatroom if you want to discuss this further?

> Forĝejo is now and has been an AGPL product since 15 April... You are mistaken, Forgejo is licensed under MIT. Please stop spreading this information. It is distracting, counter productive and could be confusing to someone reading this thread. Overall it has a negative impact on the Forgejo project. Could you please join the [Reconciliation chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-reconciliation:matrix.org) if you want to discuss this further?
Owner
Copy link

I welcome the AGPL license, as it does not allow to create proprietary SaaS(s) platforms based on Forgejo. I don't mind otherwise, but I think that a switch to GPL is kinda pointless. The chance that there is a binary distribution of Forgejo which would then need to include the source code is rather low IMHO, and fighting this fight without much benefit is not worth the effort in my eyes.

My recommendation is to put focus on what we want to achieve. The license is a tool, but the important question is: Do we want to prevent the scenario of proprietary compiled Forgejo distributions, or rather commercial platforms which don't need to credit back (right now, everyone can literally spin up a forge based on Forgejo and don't need to credit the project anywhere). Or do we just want to have it as a matter of principle and attract copyleft developers without much impact on the usage of Forgejo? Something else?

I welcome the AGPL license, as it does not allow to create proprietary SaaS(s) platforms based on Forgejo. I don't mind otherwise, but I think that a switch to GPL is kinda pointless. The chance that there is a binary distribution of Forgejo which would then need to include the source code is rather low IMHO, and fighting this fight without much benefit is not worth the effort in my eyes. My recommendation is to put focus on what we want to achieve. The license is a tool, but the important question is: Do we want to prevent the scenario of proprietary compiled Forgejo distributions, or rather commercial platforms which don't need to credit back (right now, everyone can literally spin up a forge based on Forgejo and don't need to credit the project anywhere). Or do we just want to have it as a matter of principle and attract copyleft developers without much impact on the usage of Forgejo? Something else?

My recommendation is to put focus on what we want to achieve.

What I want to achieve is that Forgejo accepts copyleft contributions instead of refusing them. This is practical and has a concrete impact. As long as Forgejo does not explicitly state that copyleft contributions are welcome there won't be any. If there is no copyleft code within Forgejo, releasing it under a copyleft license won't be more than a symbolic gesture: the license won't be enforceable. Only copyright holders are empowered to enforce a license.

> My recommendation is to put focus on what we want to achieve. What I want to achieve is that **Forgejo accepts copyleft contributions instead of refusing them**. This is practical and has a concrete impact. As long as Forgejo does not explicitly state that copyleft contributions are welcome there won't be any. If there is no copyleft code within Forgejo, releasing it under a copyleft license won't be more than a symbolic gesture: the license won't be enforceable. Only copyright holders are empowered to enforce a license.

I welcome the AGPL license, as it does not allow to create proprietary SaaS(s) platforms based on Forgejo.

Me too and if given the opportunity I will always publish my work under AGPLv3+.

> I welcome the AGPL license, as it does not allow to create proprietary SaaS(s) platforms based on Forgejo. Me too and if given the opportunity I will always publish my work under AGPLv3+.

I welcome the AGPL license, as it does not allow to create proprietary SaaS(s) platforms based on Forgejo. I don't mind otherwise, but I think that a switch to GPL is kinda pointless. The chance that there is a binary distribution of Forgejo which would then need to include the source code is rather low IMHO, and fighting this fight without much benefit is not worth the effort in my eyes.

My recommendation is to put focus on what we want to achieve. The license is a tool, but the important question is: Do we want to prevent the scenario of proprietary compiled Forgejo distributions, or rather commercial platforms which don't need to credit back (right now, everyone can literally spin up a forge based on Forgejo and don't need to credit the project anywhere). Or do we just want to have it as a matter of principle and attract copyleft developers without much impact on the usage of Forgejo? Something else?

Yes, concur 100%.

This prevents those who would deploy hosted services from imbedding their own code without giving back, and making it completely transparent.

As it stood prior to 15 April, this was not the case - anyone could deploy the service, even obscuring the fact that it was Forĝejo based, and prevent anyone from knowing what code was included.

@earl-warren - I was not mistaken at all. it has been pointed out to you several times that the community chose the AGPL in a duly held election, which became the license of Forĝejo moving forward on 15 April 2023. I won't bother with the redundancy of providing all of those links again, as you are more than welcome to check for yourself.

If, for some reason, you find that they have been scrubbed from the repos here, feel free to reach out to me and I'll be happy to provide you with links to several archive services that have preserved those official actions for posterity. I understand that you may have been confused and as a result of other matters mistaken in your assumption - but the facts are the facts.

tech crunch followed too so it's more than just what one person decided for himself with a despotic unilateral, so-called reboot that never actually occurred.

I hope that helps!

⛵

.

> I welcome the AGPL license, as it does not allow to create proprietary SaaS(s) platforms based on Forgejo. I don't mind otherwise, but I think that a switch to GPL is kinda pointless. The chance that there is a binary distribution of Forgejo which would then need to include the source code is rather low IMHO, and fighting this fight without much benefit is not worth the effort in my eyes. > > My recommendation is to put focus on what we want to achieve. The license is a tool, but the important question is: Do we want to prevent the scenario of proprietary compiled Forgejo distributions, or rather commercial platforms which don't need to credit back (right now, everyone can literally spin up a forge based on Forgejo and don't need to credit the project anywhere). Or do we just want to have it as a matter of principle and attract copyleft developers without much impact on the usage of Forgejo? Something else? Yes, concur 100%. This prevents those who would deploy hosted services from imbedding their own code without giving back, and making it completely transparent. As it stood prior to 15 April, this was not the case - anyone could deploy the service, even obscuring the fact that it was Forĝejo based, and prevent anyone from knowing what code was included. @earl-warren - I was not mistaken at all. it has been pointed out to you several times that the community chose the AGPL in a duly held election, which became the license of Forĝejo moving forward on 15 April 2023. I won't bother with the redundancy of providing all of those links again, as you are more than welcome to check for yourself. If, for some reason, you find that they have been scrubbed from the repos here, feel free to reach out to me and I'll be happy to provide you with links to several archive services that have preserved those official actions for posterity. I understand that you may have been confused and as a result of other matters mistaken in your assumption - but the facts are the facts. tech crunch followed too so it's more than just what one person decided for himself with a despotic unilateral, so-called reboot that never actually occurred. I hope that helps! ⛵ .

I would suggest against choosing the "same license as git", since this would mean choosing "GPL-2.0-only", which is not compatible with "AGPL-3.0" according to the wikipedia compatibility graph (i.e. GPL-2.0 code cannot be included in an AGPL-3.0 codebase).

Friendly reminder, that a [MISSION] on Forgejo accepting copyleft contributions is being agreed upon in forgejo/governance#20 (it is not actionable as-is, since the exact license choices will happen in another agreement. However it strongly encourages copyleft contributions to be accepted into forgejo at some point).

I was not mistaken at all. it has been pointed out to you several times that the community chose the AGPL in a duly held election, which became the license of Forĝejo moving forward on 15 April 2023. I won't bother with the redundancy of providing all of those links again, as you are more than welcome to check for yourself.

@tallship I guess you are referring to forgejo/meta#183. As already pointed out, this vote clearly did not follow the decision making process (several concerns were raised and not addressed or even acknowledged).

I would suggest against choosing the "same license as git", since this would mean choosing "GPL-2.0-only", which is not compatible with "AGPL-3.0" according to the [wikipedia compatibility graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#/media/File:Floss-license-slide-image.svg) (i.e. GPL-2.0 code cannot be included in an AGPL-3.0 codebase). --- Friendly reminder, that a `[MISSION] on Forgejo accepting copyleft contributions` is being agreed upon in forgejo/governance#20 (it is not actionable as-is, since the exact license choices will happen in another agreement. However it strongly encourages copyleft contributions to be accepted into forgejo at some point). --- > I was not mistaken at all. it has been pointed out to you several times that the community chose the AGPL in a duly held election, which became the license of Forĝejo moving forward on 15 April 2023. I won't bother with the redundancy of providing all of those links again, as you are more than welcome to check for yourself. @tallship I guess you are referring to forgejo/meta#183. As already pointed out, this vote clearly did not follow the [decision making process](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/DECISION-MAKING.md) (several concerns were raised and not addressed or even acknowledged).

As a small step in the AGPL direction, I propose accepting contributions compatible with GPLv3-or-later: forgejo/governance#24

Even if it does not go all the way to AGPL, I think it will help move the license discussion in the right direction (of copyleft - pun intended :).

Feel free to react and/or raise concerns on this agreement proposal.

As a small step in the AGPL direction, I propose accepting contributions compatible with GPLv3-or-later: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/24 Even if it does not go all the way to AGPL, I think it will help move the license discussion in the right direction (of copyleft - pun intended :). Feel free to react and/or raise concerns on this agreement proposal.

I think this is an interesting topic to revisit now that forgejo/governance#58 has received much positive feedback, and also considering the rising tensions with Gitea.

Forgejo contributions to Gitea are not well received:

Because of this, I think the following clause in the original proposal can be modified, as Gitea is not interested in bug fixes and features that originate from here:

Files which originate from Gitea remain MIT-licensed, so bug fixes and Gitea-only features can be contributed back.

I think this is an interesting topic to revisit now that https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/58 has received much positive feedback, and also considering the rising tensions with Gitea. Forgejo contributions to Gitea are not well received: * #111 - Forgejo PRs are rarely merged * #67 - Contributing to Gitea with proper attribution is currently impossible * [At least one Gitea maintainer refuses to cooperate with Forgejo contributors](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/28651#issuecomment-1872531431) Because of this, I think the following clause in the original proposal can be modified, as Gitea is not interested in bug fixes and features that originate from here: > Files which originate from Gitea remain MIT-licensed, so bug fixes and Gitea-only features can be contributed back.

A message from an account created to circumvent a ban from Forgejo spaces was deleted, send a mail to moderation@forgejo.org for more information.

A message from an account created to circumvent a ban from Forgejo spaces was deleted, send a mail to moderation@forgejo.org for more information.
Owner
Copy link

Discussions on licensing happened elsewhere in the meantime, e.g. in #192

Discussions on licensing happened elsewhere in the meantime, e.g. in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/192
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
8 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#6
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?