Ancestors

Toot

Written by Forgejo on 2024-08-31 at 21:19

The #Forgejo monthly update was published ✨ It is a high level overview of the project activities.

Forgejo changed its license from MIT to GNU GPL v3+, it is now copyleft, just like Git. A pull request for federated user activity following using ActivityPub saw significant progress. Space usage quotas for users and organizations was implemented. The Forgejo security policy was published.

https://forgejo.org/2024-08-monthly-update/

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from forgejo@floss.social

Descendants

Written by NeatNit on 2024-08-31 at 21:37

@forgejo Shouldn't it be AGPL instead of GPL? (No agenda here, genuinely asking)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from neatnit@fosstodon.org

Written by PureTryOut on 2024-09-01 at 06:28

@neatnit @forgejo I thought the same. I wonder if that is what they meant to type, since they typed "a GPL3" which is a weird way to say that.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bart@mastodon.fam-ribbers.com

Written by John Walker on 2024-09-01 at 07:01

@bart

In their blog they also write GPL 🤔

@neatnit @forgejo

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JohnWalkerx@social.tchncs.de

Written by Earl Warren on 2024-09-01 at 07:10

@JohnWalkerx @bart @neatnit @forgejo this is a typo, evidently. Here is the pull request to fix that.

Good catch 👍

https://codeberg.org/forgejo/website/pulls/488/files

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from earlwarren@mastodon.online

Written by Earl Warren on 2024-09-01 at 07:27

@JohnWalkerx @bart @neatnit @forgejo fix merged & toot also edited to fix the typo. 🚀

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from earlwarren@mastodon.online

Written by PureTryOut on 2024-09-02 at 04:32

@earlwarren @JohnWalkerx @neatnit @forgejo Oh. In that case I do wonder why the AGPL wasn't chosen instead, it seems to make more sense for network-based applications like this.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bart@mastodon.fam-ribbers.com

Written by Earl Warren on 2024-09-02 at 06:02

@bart @JohnWalkerx @neatnit @forgejo I would have welcome AGPL right away, but it is much more difficult to get a consensus. Just to name a few active talking points among Forgejo community members (all of which can be found in the rather long discussion on the matter):

• EUPL or AGPL? Which one is best?
• How can someone comply exactly, what tooling must be created?
• network clause are frowned upon by the legal department of my organization, that would for me to switch to another forge

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from earlwarren@mastodon.online

Written by io+ :determination: on 2024-08-31 at 22:33

@forgejo why not AGPL?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from io@akko.wtf

Written by Earl Warren on 2024-09-01 at 05:37

@io @forgejo there was a consensus on GPL in 2023 and not yet on AGPL, although discussions are ongoing.

I'm happy about having a copylefted codebase that cannot ever turn proprietary. And I do hope it gets to AGPL eventually.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from earlwarren@mastodon.online

Written by io+ :determination: on 2024-09-01 at 05:42

@earlwarren @forgejo

I'm happy about having a copylefted codebase that cannot ever turn proprietary.

That is not possible with a web service under the GPL.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from io@akko.wtf

Written by io+ :determination: on 2024-09-01 at 06:14

@earlwarren @forgejo well, if someone distributes a binary, then they also have to distribute the source, under the GPL. but not if they make changes to an instance for which they don't distribute binaries.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from io@akko.wtf

Written by Charadon on 2024-09-01 at 00:38

@forgejo Congrats on switching to GPL!

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from charadon@8bit.red

Written by 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬 on 2024-09-01 at 01:29

@forgejo I’m an avid fan of the MIT license. But oh well 🙃 All the other things sound great. I’m totally looking forward to the federation features (and for being more active on the repo at Codeberg again).

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from dirk@gts.0x7be.net

Written by green eyed gurl | she/her on 2024-09-01 at 04:19

@forgejo @hankskyjames777 you're being featured over there

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from nautilathedrowned2@mastodon.xyz

Written by Peaksol on 2024-09-01 at 07:01

@forgejo Congrats on switching to copyleft!

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from peaksol@floss.social

Written by Kita Filipino Edition :blobcatadorable: on 2024-09-01 at 09:15

@forgejo yet another streak from being in the monthly update /j

anyway, I'm happy that Forgejo is now GPLv3 moving forward, making it completely free software.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kitacat@wetdry.world

Written by Räucherkäse on 2024-09-01 at 10:44

@forgejo I was surprised they could just do that, considering forgejo's Gitea origin, but the announcement reads: "The majority of Forgejo’s codebase is still MIT-licensed, but it is expected that an increasing number of files will switch to GNU GPL v3+ over time."

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from smochi@sakurajima.moe