Ancestors

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

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

Toot

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

Descendants

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