Forgejo is now copyleft, just like Git #467

earl-warren commented 2024年07月30日 01:42:02 +02:00

Preview: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_467/2024-08-gpl/

Preview: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_467/2024-08-gpl/

forgejo-website commented 2024年07月30日 01:42:52 +02:00

Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_467/

Preview ready: https://forgejo.codeberg.page/@pull_467/

earl-warren commented 2024年07月30日 06:28:18 +02:00

I'll re-use last year blog post to make it better.

I'll re-use last year blog post to make it better.

Ghost commented 2024年07月30日 12:30:09 +02:00

Re-using #204/files and adding a conclusion paragraph, here is a proposal for a more substantial blog post:

Title: Forgejo is now GPL, just like Git.

Developers who choose to publish their work under a copyleft license are excluded from participating in software that is published under a permissive license. That is at the opposite of the core values of the Forgejo project and in June 2023 it was decided to also accept copylefted contributions.

A year later, in July 2024, the first pull requests to take advantage of this opportunity were proposed and merged. Forgejo versions starting from v9.0 are now released under the GPLv3+ while all Forgejo versions, including v8.0 and v7.0 patch releases remain under the MIT license.

This new license does not change anything for Forgejo users because they already install one of the most successful copyleft software alongside Forgejo: Git. Both Forgejo and Git must be used together, either as individual binaries or bundled into the official container images. The license of Git is GNU GPLv2, another version of the same copyleft license. Although the Forgejo codebase includes basic support for go-git, a Go package distributed under a permissive license that can be used in place of Git, it is not supported or packaged because it is not fully compatible and could corrupt Git repositories.

The license of Forgejo is not carved in stone and this change shows that it can adapt. It also shows that it is a long process: it took months of discussions to reach the agreement in 2023. And another year for it to be put to use. This slow pace reflects how difficult it is to make a sound decision knowing it will have a long lasting impact. The discussions on how to improve Forgejo's licensing are still very lively and will eventually lead to decisions that will improve its legal protection, in the interest of the general public.

Re-using https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/204/files and adding a conclusion paragraph, here is a proposal for a more substantial blog post: Title: Forgejo is now GPL, just like Git. Developers who choose to publish their work under a copyleft license are excluded from participating in software that is published under a permissive license. That is at the opposite of the [core values](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/MISSION.md#values) of the Forgejo project and [in June 2023 it was decided to also accept copylefted](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/20) contributions. A year later, in July 2024, the first pull requests [to take advantage of this opportunity](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AGREEMENTS.md#licensing) were proposed and merged. Forgejo versions starting from v9.0 are now released [under the GPLv3+](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4737/files) while all Forgejo versions, including v8.0 and v7.0 patch releases remain under [the MIT license](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/v8.0/forgejo/LICENSE). This new license does not change anything for Forgejo users because they already install one of the most successful copyleft software alongside Forgejo: Git. Both Forgejo and Git must be used together, either as individual binaries or bundled into the [official container images](https://codeberg.org/forgejo-experimental/-/packages/container/forgejo/v9.0-test). The license of Git is [GNU GPLv2](https://git-scm.com/about/free-and-open-source), another version of the same [copyleft license](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.html). Although the Forgejo codebase includes basic support for [go-git](https://github.com/go-git/go-git), a Go package distributed under a permissive license that can be used in place of Git, it is not supported or packaged because it is [not fully compatible](https://github.com/go-git/go-git/blob/master/COMPATIBILITY.md) and could corrupt Git repositories. The license of Forgejo is not carved in stone and this change shows that it can adapt. It also shows that it is a long process: it took months of discussions to reach the agreement in 2023. And another year for it to be put to use. This slow pace reflects how difficult it is to make a sound decision knowing it will have a long lasting impact. The [discussions on how to improve](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/192) Forgejo's licensing are still very lively and will eventually lead to decisions that will improve its legal protection, in the interest of the general public.

Beowulf commented 2024年07月30日 12:37:33 +02:00

To allow them to be merged, the license of Forgejo starting with v9.0 will be GPLv3+.

If an agreement is reached on this, as discussed in forgejo/discussions#192. This sentence would make it impossible to follow the agreement with v9.x, or it would make communication worse...

Because we would now communicate "the license for 9.x is fixed". At the same time, I would still consider it a worst-case scenario if 9.x is licensed under GPLv3+ and 10.x is licensed under e.g. AGPL3 or EUPL. I think that just makes it more complicated later...

This is only meant as a side note, it should not block it - there is an agreement for it.

> To allow them to be merged, the license of Forgejo starting with v9.0 will be [GPLv3+](https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-or-later.html). If an agreement is reached on this, as discussed in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/192. This sentence would make it impossible to follow the agreement with v9.x, or it would make communication worse... Because we would now communicate "the license for 9.x is fixed". At the same time, I would still consider it a worst-case scenario if 9.x is licensed under GPLv3+ and 10.x is licensed under e.g. AGPL3 or EUPL. I think that just makes it more complicated later... This is only meant as a side note, it should not block it - there is an agreement for it.

earl-warren commented 2024年07月30日 13:15:37 +02:00

As suggested by @fnetX changed the title to be

Forgejo is now copyleft, just like Git.

there is no need to be prominently specific on it being GPL. The links to the pull requests have that written all over anyway. And it is also an door open to other copyleft licenses, AGPL etc.

As suggested by @fnetX changed the title to be > Forgejo is now copyleft, just like Git. there is no need to be prominently specific on it being GPL. The links to the pull requests have that written all over anyway. And it is also an door open to other copyleft licenses, AGPL etc.

fnetX commented 2024年07月30日 13:42:31 +02:00

I like the title. I think it is also more correct (because Git is a different GPL version and comparing was slightly incorrect in my eyes before).

I like the title. I think it is also more correct (because Git is a different GPL version and comparing was slightly incorrect in my eyes before).

earl-warren commented 2024年07月30日 14:39:21 +02:00

@jean-daricade updated with your draft, @fnetX changed the title.

@jean-daricade updated with your draft, @fnetX changed the title.

earl-warren commented 2024年08月08日 11:33:14 +02:00

@jean-daricade any other changes?

@jean-daricade any other changes?

earl-warren commented 2024年08月08日 11:44:54 +02:00

@viceice do you have time to review this post? It is meant to be merged at the same time as forgejo/forgejo#4737.

@viceice do you have time to review this post? It is meant to be merged at the same time as https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/4737.

Ghost commented 2024年08月08日 14:37:47 +02:00

I cannot remove myself from the reviewers, can someone do that for me?

I cannot remove myself from the reviewers, can someone do that for me?

Reason:

earl-warren commented 2024年08月08日 14:38:49 +02:00

It is a matter of permission, done @jean-daricade

It is a matter of permission, done @jean-daricade

fnetX commented 2024年08月08日 15:43:02 +02:00

I intend to work on it, and I believe I get to it at least tomorrow. Basically I am concerned that this blog post lacks in clarity and quality, compared to most of what we publish as Forgejo.

My aim is to make this post similar to most of the other posts: Mention what the blog post is about (see my example below which includes a basic version", some structure via headlines, and the most important things first. The blog post appears to be structured in a logical way, not in a user-focused way. I suggest we put the consequences for users at the very top. Like:

How will this impact me?

We have carefully tried to consider the impact the license change has on the variety of usages of Forgejo, and we believe there is no reason to worry. We are not aware of negative consequences the license change could cause for users who are aligned with Forgejo's values. While we cannot give legal advice, this blog post will try to bring clarity about the impact and the motivation behind this change, as well as give a hint on the future.

If you set up Forgejo from our official distributions (e.g. binaries, docker images etc), we don't know of any legal consequences that would affect you. You continue hosting Forgejo and we will ensure that the version we ship will fulfill eventual license requirements."

Maybe elaborating on impact for other usages like customization, distributions / packagers etc, public hosting etc.

What do you think?

If you disagree with me or you want to get this out sooner, feel free not to wait for me. However, I'm still under the impression that this needs some good preparation to avoid confusion and fear in this - unfortunately delicate - topic of licenses.

I intend to work on it, and I believe I get to it at least tomorrow. Basically I am concerned that this blog post lacks in clarity and quality, compared to most of what we publish as Forgejo. My aim is to make this post similar to most of the other posts: Mention what the blog post is about (see my example below which includes a basic version", some structure via headlines, and the most important things first. The blog post appears to be structured in a logical way, not in a user-focused way. I suggest we put the consequences for users at the very top. Like: > ## How will this impact me? > > We have carefully tried to consider the impact the license change has on the variety of usages of Forgejo, and we believe there is no reason to worry. We are not aware of negative consequences the license change could cause for users who are aligned with Forgejo's values. While we cannot give legal advice, this blog post will try to bring clarity about the impact and the motivation behind this change, as well as give a hint on the future. > > If you set up Forgejo from our official distributions (e.g. binaries, docker images etc), we don't know of any legal consequences that would affect you. You continue hosting Forgejo and we will ensure that the version we ship will fulfill eventual license requirements." > > Maybe elaborating on impact for other usages like customization, distributions / packagers etc, public hosting etc. What do you think? If you disagree with me or you want to get this out sooner, feel free not to wait for me. However, I'm still under the impression that this needs some good preparation to avoid confusion and fear in this - unfortunately delicate - topic of licenses.

earl-warren commented 2024年08月08日 18:21:22 +02:00

What do you think?

This looks very fine to me.

> What do you think? This looks very fine to me.

fnetX commented 2024年08月09日 13:14:08 +02:00

I created a PR in Earl-Warren's fork at earl-warren/website#2

Looking forward to your review.

I created a PR in Earl-Warren's fork at https://codeberg.org/earl-warren/website/pulls/2 Looking forward to your review.

earl-warren commented 2024年08月09日 15:32:00 +02:00

@fnetX all good.

@fnetX all good.

viceice commented 2024年08月09日 15:41:44 +02:00

needs prettier fix

needs prettier fix

earl-warren commented 2024年08月10日 08:34:47 +02:00

@caesar your comments are applied at fa660f30f9, could you please double check to verify the copy/pasting I did is good?

@caesar your comments are applied at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/commit/fa660f30f96b1f289bd26129108f3b2a77ec7ca0, could you please double check to verify the copy/pasting I did is good?

earl-warren commented 2024年08月22日 11:45:37 +02:00

Good catch, I'll fix that now.

Good catch, I'll fix that now.