The momentum stalled when the community was plagued recently by toxic behaviour of one of the members who started the fork. He had to step down from the "well-being" team[1], bullied a moderation team member into stepping down[2] and forced him to disclose information from a private chat[3].
Now he is trying to "reboot" the community to erase his previous bad behaviour [4]
Forgejo members are also unhappy about conflicts of interest of this individual [5]
The Forgejo community is stronger than this one individual, so it will succeed.
This was not a company decision, it was proposed by a non-company member and approved by two other non-company members (and one company member, but just pointing out context).
It is sad to see that the forgejo team accept and promote the built-in CI server. When the PR was first made they said they shouldn't trust the code, and will stick with woodpecker.
Forgejo is AGPL, there was just a vote and the community came out strongly to say they disagree with commercial usage of Forgejo! I am so happy they did that!
Thanks for the clarification. I’m not a crypto dev or into crypto much but I’m not into the idea of banning people for “wrong code”, “wrong speak” or idealogical reasons so I’ll be sure to stay away from sourceHut, Ddevault and codeberg.
I share your concerns and principled stance. These ideological driven policies are akin to polices encouraging bookburnings in my eyes. Futile polices that do nothing but hurt those who perpetuate it and engage in it.
I don't know, i have a friend who went to the UK in 2015 to work on ready-made dropshipping website that they sold to influencers, and latter on the business shifted to ready-made shitcoins they sold to influencers, with "additionnal code" sold separately (throttle selling, and bypassing the throttle for example). I think the main solidity code was hosted on sourceforge, and this made me kind of boycott the website (i mean, i don't use it much anyway). I understand they need to make money, but hosting tools designed to create scams is a bit too much. I think they sold (or disbanded) the company last year, so i'm not sure if the product is still hosted there.
I guess that if you don't want to pay a moderation team who can read code, banning solidity code and crypto-related project is good enough.
I only wrote this as a counterpoint. i understand your stance, you don't want private company to support censorship. I don't really want that either, but i also don't want private companies to allow scam to be run on their plateforms, and to me, protecting less informed citizens is more important that protecting an ideological concept. It's a trade off for me, and i understand people who don't weigh things the same way.
So, reducing to the actual difference we have … “not them” and “promises to be different from them” …
As someone using neither of them Im genuinely perplexed why anyone trying to work in this space thinks they have a snowballs chance in hell of long term survival if they don’t have some level of critical mass. If the moment the mass reaches critical and business organisation is needed to deal with the legal and business stuff… this whole debacle is a very hardline open source philosophy shitshow and I fully expect this splinter group to eventually fail with the longer term survival of the parent project now less certain because they lost some of that critical mass right at a crucial moment in their growth towards a sustainable level of business cashflow (which is a necessary evil in order for developers working in any software to make a god damn living and not die starving in a gutter) …
So yeah, please tell me why your promises make you qualitatively better at something I would care about?
If your business/community are getting the bulk of their growth from the community of people being alienated from a much larger, older, platform… it behoves you to not make it harder for people to choose you from the other options as they walk out the proverbial door.
See that right there is already a better statement than what I replied to. However it still doesn’t tell me how you intend on being more respectful of user freedoms than the other project. You effectively have to convince me why your ethical stance is the correct one in order to make your project seem better than it’s parent in order to sway me towards choosing it over the older more established project.
This should not be trusted, the for-profit company worked on in secret on this for months with multiple people, and released it today in a code dump with no input from the community. Now they have no incentive to support alternative CI/CD like woodpecker
No. Using a pushover license instead of the AGPL is like not locking your door, and using other people's free work in your own non-free product is stealing from the commons.
The momentum stalled when the community was plagued recently by toxic behaviour of one of the members who started the fork. He had to step down from the "well-being" team[1], bullied a moderation team member into stepping down[2] and forced him to disclose information from a private chat[3].
Now he is trying to "reboot" the community to erase his previous bad behaviour [4]
Forgejo members are also unhappy about conflicts of interest of this individual [5]
The Forgejo community is stronger than this one individual, so it will succeed.
[1]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/commit/d822fc3b90f79372023...
[2]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82...
[3]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/176#issuecomment-82...
[4]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187
[5]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/180#issuecomment-843...