Forgejo gifting code to Gitea #160

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月19日 15:38:57 +01:00

Edit: Handing over to @fsologureng

As an action item from #86 I propose to update our Contribution documentation to highlight, that Forgejo wants to be a good citizen on the Internet.

In particular, there are members who don't want to sign up with GitHub (where Gitea is hosted for now). If changes in Forgejo are meant to be contributed back upstream, we will need some agreement, that someone from the team acts on behalf of the original author.

#86 is discussing a possible license change which may or may not happen in the future. If we switch to a copyleft license like an AGPL, a re-licensing is required to provide the patch under a MIT license which Gitea is using.

Therefore I propose to update our Contribution guideline to give a blank grant that anyone on the team can do so at any point in time.

Edit: Handing over to @fsologureng As an action item from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/86 I propose to update our Contribution documentation to highlight, that Forgejo wants to be a good citizen on the Internet. In particular, there are members who don't want to sign up with GitHub (where Gitea is hosted for now). If changes in Forgejo are meant to be contributed back upstream, we will need some agreement, that someone from the team acts on behalf of the original author. #86 is discussing a possible license change which may or may not happen in the future. If we switch to a copyleft license like an AGPL, a re-licensing is required to provide the patch under a MIT license which Gitea is using. Therefore I propose to update our Contribution guideline to give a blank grant that anyone on the team can do so at any point in time.

oliverpool commented 2023年02月19日 17:17:46 +01:00

I think the best way would be to have one (spdx) header per file indicating its license (and coprytight holders).

And then we can aim at licensing upstreamable code as MIT, while other parts could be something with stronger copyleft.

---

Or how do imagine the "blank grant"?
"Code is available here under AGPL, but can be submitted as MIT by anyone to gitea anytime" (which means that the code is effectively MIT).

I think the best way would be to have one (spdx) header per file indicating its license (and coprytight holders). And then we can aim at licensing upstreamable code as MIT, while other parts could be something with stronger copyleft. --- Or how do imagine the "blank grant"? "Code is available here under AGPL, but can be submitted as MIT by anyone to gitea anytime" (which means that the code is effectively MIT).

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月19日 17:19:54 +01:00

As far as I know a copyright holder can always relicense their content/Intellectual Property under another license.

In this case (assuming we would go with AGPL) there would be a clause, that Gitea is receiving an exception and can accept code under MIT license.

Think of it as a special case of dual-licensing.

As far as I know a copyright holder can always relicense their content/Intellectual Property under another license. In this case (assuming we would go with AGPL) there would be a clause, that Gitea is receiving an exception and can accept code under MIT license. Think of it as a special case of dual-licensing.

oliverpool commented 2023年02月19日 18:01:51 +01:00

But why would Gitea Ltd receive a (positive) exception, when there actions lead to this very fork?

(The other way around, why would all other projects - expect gitea - not have the freedom to use the code under the MIT license?)

I see this as an undeserved unfair advantage for gitea.

But why would Gitea Ltd receive a (positive) exception, when there actions lead to this very fork? (The other way around, why would all other projects - expect gitea - not have the freedom to use the code under the MIT license?) I see this as an undeserved unfair advantage for gitea.

Gusted commented 2023年02月19日 18:17:34 +01:00

In this case (assuming we would go with AGPL) there would be a clause, that Gitea is receiving an exception and can accept code under MIT license.

I know people that wanted a re-license to happen, for the sole fact that Gitea wouldn't receive any code anymore (myself low-key included).

> In this case (assuming we would go with AGPL) there would be a clause, that Gitea is receiving an exception and can accept code under MIT license. I know people that wanted a re-license to happen, for the sole fact that Gitea wouldn't receive any code anymore (myself low-key included).

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月19日 20:39:34 +01:00

But why would Gitea Ltd receive a (positive) exception, when there actions lead to this very fork?

Because we are a soft-fork of Gitea and don't have enough contributors to maintain patches in the long run at the moment.

> But why would Gitea Ltd receive a (positive) exception, when there actions lead to this very fork? Because we are a soft-fork of Gitea and don't have enough contributors to maintain patches in the long run at the moment.

Ghost commented 2023年02月19日 21:55:35 +01:00

IMHO that would add an unnecessary administrative overhead.

IMHO that would add an unnecessary administrative overhead.

fsologureng commented 2023年02月27日 04:04:00 +01:00

IMHO that would add an unnecessary administrative overhead.

I see a clearly expressed necessity in case copyleft is established, so do you know of another way to make contributions to Gitea without overloading, or do you mean that in your opinion no contributions should be made upstream? Can you elaborate on your criteria in this respect? I am particularly interested based on your stated interest in a copyleft license.

> IMHO that would add an unnecessary administrative overhead. I see a clearly expressed necessity in case copyleft is established, so do you know of another way to make contributions to Gitea without overloading, or do you mean that in your opinion no contributions should be made upstream? Can you elaborate on your criteria in this respect? I am particularly interested based on your stated interest in a copyleft license.

crystal commented 2023年02月28日 06:09:10 +01:00

I don't think this is necessary. It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea. If we move to copyleft, their wishes should be respected. On the other hand, contributors should be free to relicense their own contributions to MIT for submission to Gitea if they wish.

I don't think this is necessary. It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea. If we move to copyleft, their wishes should be respected. On the other hand, contributors should be free to relicense their own contributions to MIT for submission to Gitea if they wish.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月28日 09:26:29 +01:00

It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea.

I've yet to see one such case. If that were true, I'm willing to withdraw this issue.

> It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea. I've yet to see one such case. If that were true, I'm willing to withdraw this issue.

fsologureng commented 2023年02月28日 12:33:44 +01:00

@Ryuno-Ki

It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea.

I've yet to see one such case. If t buhat were true, I'm willing to withdraw this issue.

Shouldn't it be up to the community to decide as it eventually decides on copyleft?

@Ryuno-Ki >> It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea. > >I've yet to see one such case. If t buhat were true, I'm willing to withdraw this issue. Shouldn't it be up to the community to decide as it eventually decides on copyleft?

crystal commented 2023年02月28日 20:02:29 +01:00

It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea.

I've yet to see one such case. If that were true, I'm willing to withdraw this issue.

I've found one such case

> > It is clear that some people do not want their contributions sent upstream to Gitea. > > I've yet to see one such case. If that were true, I'm willing to withdraw this issue. [I've found one such case](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/160#issuecomment-807227)

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月28日 20:37:53 +01:00

@fsologureng The community is free to open another issue :)

@crystal I interpreted this differently. But I stick to my word and hereby withdraw this proposal.

@fsologureng The community is free to open another issue :) @crystal I interpreted this differently. But I stick to my word and hereby withdraw this proposal.

fsologureng commented 2023年02月28日 23:28:33 +01:00

@fsologureng The community is free to open another issue :)

Should I understand that you are not part of the community?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

> @fsologureng The community is free to open another issue :) Should I understand that you are not part of the community? ["I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall)

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年03月01日 07:27:13 +01:00

@fsologureng

@fsologureng The community is free to open another issue :)

Should I understand that you are not part of the community?

I'm not the one that will argue in favour of this issue any more. But I'm going to take a neutral position.

@fsologureng >> @fsologureng The community is free to open another issue :) > >Should I understand that you are not part of the community? I'm not the one that will argue in favour of this issue any more. But I'm going to take a neutral position.

fsologureng commented 2023年03月01日 14:09:41 +01:00

I will close this issue in favor of issue #184, which IMO addresses the problem better.

I will close this issue in favor of issue #184, which IMO addresses the problem better.

fsologureng commented 2023年03月01日 14:17:39 +01:00

I would very much appreciate it if @Gusted would express his opinion there, by the way.

I would very much appreciate it if @Gusted would express his opinion there, by the way.