Comment by jazzyjackson
1 year ago
From the FAQ, forˈd͡ʒe.jo, to my midwestern ear, "4 Jay yo", Esperantese for Forge. A fork of Gitea [0] but managed via a non profit, no premium upsells, all freely licensed [1](GPL) etc.
Good to see their community outreach is via Matrix and Mastadon. My kind of nerds.
Apparently this is what Codeberg is running out, if you click . Looks like gitea/github to me, nothing wrong with that [2] source code is available from the little branch icon in the top right corner, hosted on codeberg which TIL is a forgejo instance [3]
[0] https://forgejo.org/2024-02-forking-forward/
[1] https://forgejo.org/2024-08-gpl/
> no premium upsells
So.. like gitea?
From my understanding the fork was done because gitea created a company to build custom-features for companies if they ask. Not really many indicators for a rugpull
The pricing page (https://about.gitea.com/pricing/) talks about paywalled "Enhanced enterprise-level features and experiences". Are you sure that doesn't count as a premium upsell?
[flagged]
> and never actually does anything new afaik, it's just Gitea under another name, while taking money too
This is really unfair to the many people who spend their free time working on Forgejo, please stop spreading nonsense. They have worked hard on "boring" improvements like translations, accessibility and proper unit and e2e testing, but also UI improvements, federation support, and other genuinely new features (asset quotas, wiki search, ...). Take a look for yourself: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls.
Regarding the money part, Forgejo is not monetized. It is a true FOSS project (recently re-licensed as GPLv3), not open-core like Gitea. The only funding they receive is from donations and grants, they are not selling a product.
> (and never actually does anything new afaik, it's just Gitea under another name, while taking money too)
What evidence do you have for this strong claim? I’m using Forgejo and contributed to the docs once. It seems to me real work is happening in Forgejo. A lot from what I can see is stabilizing infrastructure and fixing bugs. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The money that Forgejo takes is €60/month in Liberapay donations, and some grants to develop federation features so I think it's a little disingenuous to compare it to Gitea's pivot to open core and hosted cloud service.
> Gitea goes commercial, making previous community contributions into essentially free labor for their profit
Gitea (like Gogs) is under MIT license, which allow commercial applications. Is the new expectation of open source that we grant everyone license terms that they shouldn't use? I don't understand this at all.
Forgejo is under GPL-3.0, which also allows commercial applications. Should we expect the Forgejo community to start name-calling any company that would use Forgejo according to its license terms?
2 replies →
How viable is gogs right now? I see that there is some activity on the repo but I guess there's no reason to not use Gitea or Forgejo?
2 replies →
It's more like "forge place" in the same way that kafejo (cafe) is "coffee place".
It's actually more like "distant gay" (and would be pronounced with a hard "g") because it's a (presumably deliberate) misspelling of forĝejo.
That's English for you, same word is usable for describing action, place and the furnace.
Actually, they thought that the Esperanto word for forge, is «forgejo». When somebody pointed out, that «forgejo» (fora gejo -> forgejo) is «faraway gay person», it was already too late. So, now they say that it is inspired by «forĝejo», which is the word for forge.
I was kind of passively wondering the other day what the main differences were between gitea and forgejo at this point, since they've been separate projects for a bit now. It seems there aren't any direct comparisons I could find, though.