Forgejo instead of Gitea

[fossdd]

Oh, didn't thougt I had to explain it. But sure:

On Thu Dec 19, 2024 at 3:23 PM CET, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2024-12-18 20:27:29 +0100 (+0100), fossdd wrote:
> > can I motivate you to avoid referencing Gitea and name Forgejo[1]
> > instead.
> > 
> > See https://forgejo.org/compare-to-gitea/:
> > 
> > > Forgejo was created in October 2022 after a for profit company
> > > took over the Gitea project. It exists under the umbrella of a
> > > non-profit organization, Codeberg e.V. and is developed in the
> > > interest of the general public.
> > 
> > Since then, Gitea is open-core and Forgejo is the open-source fork.
> > 
> > [1] https://forgejo.org
>
> Having used Gitea and worked with its maintainers since well before
> the unfortunate falling out and personal disagreements between them
> and the folks who initiated the Forgejo fork, I've seen absolutely

Disclaimer: I've worked with both projects, but i'm currently only
involved with Forgejo (and Codeberg).

And I have to say that Forgejo is IMO the community git software.
Everyone is welcome to contribute, commiters are known members from the
community, everyone is heard, etc, etc.

My interaction with Gitea was rather bad. No reaction on PRs, constant
features, bug and security-issues were ignored by the Gitea team (see
also
https://forgejo.org/2023-11-release-v1-20-5-1/#responsible-disclosure-to-gitea).

> nothing to support the accusations constantly being lobbed at the
> Gitea project, but there seem to be plenty of unquestioning
> followers spreading those claims without producing any real proof to
> back them up. It would be great if everyone could just set their

I hope I backed up this a little bit, there is even more, but i really
don't want to search them again.  The forgejo team didn't fork of
because of no good reason. :)

> differences and perceived slights aside and get back to producing
> good, open source alternatives to actual proprietary services rather
> than turning on each other and wasting precious time with all this
> unnecessary in-fighting. We're all in this together, it's not a
> competition.

Well, yes. But are we together with Gitea in a boat. The pulled their
Gitea software into their Ltd and are now Open Core instead. The
proprietary bits of Gitea are just like mentioned on the website about
GitLab or Github "trade-secret, proprietary, vendor-lock-in software".

Where is in this regard the difference between Gitea and GitLab/GitHub?
At least a similar message should be added to Gitea.

They are not on our side, since the move to a Limited, they build the
same proprietary services as GitHub/GitLab and do not focus on producing
good open source alternatives.

I hope I clarified my intention! I really wish I didn't have to do this
and we all can work on FOSS instead of hammering around on proprietary
services. :)