Attribution to Gitea? #196

oliverpool commented 2023年03月16日 12:23:24 +01:00

@wxiaoguang I propose we continue our discussion in this dedicated issue.

I also value your work and our cooperation on gitea. As you have noticed, being active in the forgejo community does not prevent me from trying to propose changes upstream first.

I agree that this open discussion should only focus on this special topic.

I am not a participant for that event, in my mind, the belonging/attribution of the domain/trademark was never clarified before, so I don't think it could be called as "taking over". Even if some people do want to fork, that's their right and free to do so, but I do not see why the Ltd should be criticized.

Neither am I involved in that event, but in a literal sense, the Gitea Ltd took over the trademark/domain (since they "assume control or possession of or responsibility for"). How would you call it otherwise?
Maybe you want to say that the Ltd didn't "steal" them, but AFAIK this term was never used (the open letter says "transferred").

---

Even more, since "taking over of something" should be criticized, now Forgejo is taking over the "action" feature, I guess some contributors of such large a feature are paid by Ltd, but Forgejo uses the upstream feature as propaganda, declares as its own feature, never mentions upstream, is it a kind of "taking over"? Should this behavior be criticized?

On a strict LICENCE level, I don't think that Forgejo is "taking over" since it is simply using the license of the gitea project to provide the actions. The code ownership is still "The Gitea Authors" AFAIK.

---

Maybe we can try to be more constructive here and see how each project should credit each other (apart from respecting the LICENCE of each project).

Forgejo indicates on its homepage It is a "soft" fork of Gitea.. In some blog posts it is mentioned as well. Do you think it should be more proeminent? (while ensuring that the trademark is not violated)

I haven't seen any mention of Forgejo from Gitea in its official documentation, even when some contributions were made in its context.

@wxiaoguang I propose we continue our [discussion](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-825937) in this dedicated issue. I also value your work and our cooperation on gitea. As you have noticed, being active in the forgejo community does not prevent me from trying to propose changes upstream first. I agree that this open discussion should only focus on this special topic. > I am not a participant for that event, in my mind, the belonging/attribution of the domain/trademark was never clarified before, so I don't think it could be called as "taking over". Even if some people do want to fork, that's their right and free to do so, but I do not see why the Ltd should be criticized. Neither am I involved in that event, but in a literal sense, the Gitea Ltd [took over](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/takeover) the trademark/domain (since they "assume control or possession of or responsibility for"). How would you call it otherwise? Maybe you want to say that the Ltd didn't "steal" them, but AFAIK this term was never used (the [open letter](https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/) says "transferred"). --- > Even more, since "taking over of something" should be criticized, now Forgejo is taking over the "action" feature, I guess some contributors of such large a feature are paid by Ltd, but Forgejo uses the upstream feature as propaganda, declares as its own feature, never mentions upstream, is it a kind of "taking over"? Should this behavior be criticized? On a strict LICENCE level, I don't think that Forgejo is "taking over" since it is simply using the license of the gitea project to provide the `actions`. The code ownership is still "The Gitea Authors" AFAIK. --- Maybe we can try to be more constructive here and see how each project should credit each other (apart from respecting the LICENCE of each project). Forgejo indicates on its [homepage](https://forgejo.org/) `It is a "soft" fork of Gitea.`. In some blog posts it is mentioned as well. Do you think it should be more proeminent? (while ensuring that the trademark is not violated) I haven't seen any mention of Forgejo from Gitea in its official documentation, even when some contributions were made in its context.

wxiaoguang commented 2023年03月16日 12:49:29 +01:00

I guess neither you nor I could resolve the "crediting each project" problem if no key people would like to, since Forgejo started the criticizing first and seldom mentions Gitea contributed features like "action".

About In some blog posts it is mentioned as well, TBH, that's only used by Forgejo for saying Forgejo's good, not for crediting Gitea.

And I think Gitea is open for thanking contributors (individuals? I am not sure), like https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/gitea-1.18.0-is-released/ . Before, only some were mentioned (it might be a problem, but nobody ever pointed out, to make good assumptions, I believe every project including Gitea is always thankful to every contributor, indeed many contributors like me doesn't care at all). If you want to be mentioned, I guess you could add a review comment in the changelog PR. And I think I can try to propose to make Gitea thank every author appears in the changelog.

I guess neither you nor I could resolve the "crediting each project" problem if no key people would like to, since Forgejo started the criticizing first and seldom mentions Gitea contributed features like "action". About `In some blog posts it is mentioned as well`, TBH, that's only used by Forgejo for saying Forgejo's good, not for crediting Gitea. And I think Gitea is open for thanking contributors (individuals? I am not sure), like https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/gitea-1.18.0-is-released/ . Before, only some were mentioned (it might be a problem, but nobody ever pointed out, to make good assumptions, I believe every project including Gitea is always thankful to every contributor, indeed many contributors like me doesn't care at all). If you want to be mentioned, I guess you could add a review comment in the changelog PR. And I think I can try to propose to make Gitea thank every author appears in the changelog.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年03月16日 12:56:17 +01:00

I could imagine that something like https://blog.mozilla.org/community/2021/04/16/new-contributors-to-firefox/ could work for both projects.

I remember that Forgejo had a list of contributors in one of its monthly reports. But I don't know how that list was compiled.

I could imagine that something like https://blog.mozilla.org/community/2021/04/16/new-contributors-to-firefox/ could work for both projects. I remember that Forgejo had a list of contributors in one of its monthly reports. But I don't know how that list was compiled.

earl-warren commented 2023年03月16日 12:59:46 +01:00

@wxiaoguang wrote:

Even more, since "taking over of something" should be criticized, now Forgejo is taking over the "action" feature, I guess some contributors of such large a feature are paid by Ltd, but Forgejo uses the upstream feature as propaganda, declares as its own feature, never mentions upstream, is it a kind of "taking over"?

I strongly object to this statement. It is worded aggressively. Those are unfounded accusations towards the Forgejo project.

As a community Forgejo is doing its best to keep a productive relationship with all its dependencies, Gitea included. There has been no complaint from the Gitea maintainers on the matter that are mentioned here.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion as an individual and since you are not a Gitea maintainer there is no ambiguity that your views are your own only and do not reflect those of the Gitea project.

@wxiaoguang [wrote](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-842690): > Even more, since "taking over of something" should be criticized, now Forgejo is taking over the "action" feature, I guess some contributors of such large a feature are paid by Ltd, but Forgejo uses the upstream feature as propaganda, declares as its own feature, never mentions upstream, is it a kind of "taking over"? I strongly object to this statement. It is worded aggressively. Those are unfounded accusations towards the Forgejo project. As a community Forgejo is doing its best to keep a productive relationship with **all** its dependencies, Gitea included. There has been no complaint from the Gitea maintainers on the matter that are mentioned here. You are of course entitled to your own opinion as an individual and since you are not a Gitea maintainer there is no ambiguity that your views are your own only and do not reflect those of the Gitea project.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年03月16日 13:14:15 +01:00

I keep seeing the phrase „Those are unfounded accusations towards X" in our space from time to time and would like to make people phrase them differently.

For example „can you show me evidence that make you think so?".

Otherwise the person choosing these words appear aggressive in my opinion. It's not helpful to push others into a defensive position.

I keep seeing the phrase „Those are unfounded accusations towards X" in our space from time to time and would like to make people phrase them differently. For example „can you show me evidence that make you think so?". Otherwise the person choosing these words appear aggressive in my opinion. It's not helpful to push others into a defensive position.