Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-source contributions

Re:Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-sour... by lolinder on Monday September 09, 2024 @11:23AM (#41489397)

I've been very wary of Gitea since Gitea Cloud and CommitGo, Inc. became a thing. One commercial entity (Gitea Ltd.) is one thing (although the trademark fiasco around that was a bad look on its own [0]), but when a second for-profit quietly spun up around the same open source project with little explanation I got a bit sketched out and have been cautiously using Forgejo instead (it has its own problems I won't get into here).

That said, I'd like to see more information before we jump on the outrage bandwagon. The only thing we have here is a PR that was blocked by a maintainer who's not very communicative and the speculation of a random participant in the PR discussion that they're intentionally blocking the merge because of a conflict of interest with the enterprise version. That's not a lot to go on, and there are other possible explanations besides malfeasance.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33394280

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-sour... by techknowlogick on Wednesday September 11, 2024 @04:18PM (#41515012)

Just to add some heads up, CommitGo was on the roadmap, but establishing a company in the US takes time, so the initial org was created so that something could exist while the primary one was established. Hopefully more entities that are localized to specific geographic regions can be created as funding maintainers cross borders is a headache.

edit: we (the project and the company) are also receiving advice from several major open-source foundations on what establishing a foundation for the project would look like.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Gitea blocks PR from community, charging $$ for open-sour... by lolinder on Wednesday September 11, 2024 @11:42PM (#41517372)

Heads up would have been explaining this at the time and not silently transferring ownership of the domain to a second for-profit entity with no lead up and no announcement [0]. I'd have thought that after the trademark fiasco you'd have learned to be more open about your intentions for your for-profit arms, but it seems you might have taken the opposite lesson.

[0] This announced Gitea Cloud but gave no explanation for why a second for-profit was created instead of just using the already-controversial Gitea Ltd: http://web.archive.org/web/20231127091431/https://blog.gitea...

[ Parent | on HN ]