41–50 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want 100% certainty this is completely unrealistic even if you're paying a company to host your stuff
It's not. If the terms of use unambiguously allow it, the law is on your side no matter what the host tries.
you can be sued by anyone for anything at any time, regardless of your opinion of "unambiguous"
I always wonder what GitHub has that Codeberg doesn't. It's a shame this isn't as popular. It seems like developers, of all people, are willingly letting their code be AI piggybacked.
For me so far the biggest thing holding me back is the lack of CI/CD.
I always wonder what GitHub has that Codeberg doesn't. It's a shame this isn't as popular. It seems like developers, of all people, are willingly letting their code be AI piggybacked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. If the terms of use unambiguously allow it, the law is on your side no matter what the host tries.
there's no law, it's a contract you can be sued by anyone for anything at any time, regardless of your opinion of "unambiguous"
Yes, lawsuits are how contract disputes are settled. "The law is on your side" means a court will side with you in case of a lawsuit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much they tolerate private projects and the specific rule you link is so vague it's worthless. I want 100% certainty that if my side project makes money they're not going to come after me for breaking terms. Anything less is worthless.
Worthless _to you_. Given that it's a free service, I think it's perfectly reasonable that they only want to host Free software. There are any number of other tools catering to businesses.
I'm saying vague promises are worthless, not the service if you do 100% FOSS.
I'm wondering, now almost three years in after the Forgejo/Gitea fork, which side of the fork ended up better. Both still seem very active with thousands of commits each. I run a Gitea server (since long before the fork, constantly updated) that handles issues, pull requests, signed commits, CI/CD, actions, and even serves my containers and packages. It's been amazing. Of course Forgejo can do the same. For those who…
It was FUD when the fork was announced, it is FUD now. Look at commercial images and what differentiates them from MIT — it's pretty much just SAML and not much else. Their actual development policy is "you pay us for the feature you need — we build it under MIT and ship for everyone"; their collaboration with Blender is the most prominent example of this that I know of.
I've also been wondering whether to jump ship, and have been going by comparing release notes — how many features were shipped within the same period of time, which bugs were fixed, etc. I've seen no reason to migrate, Gitea continues to advance faster, even though Forgejo copies some of their commits that still apply relatively easily.
Forget about commit counts, issues closed, and other artificial metrics — they're significantly inflated on Forgejo's side by heavy use of bots (like bumping dependencies) and merge commits (which Gitea development process doesn't use). Look at release notes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's no law, it's a contract you can be sued by anyone for anything at any time, regardless of your opinion of "unambiguous"
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Yes, lawsuits are how contract disputes are settled. "The law is on your side" means a court will side with you in case of a lawsuit.
are you?
need I remind you, you said:
> I want 100% certainty that if my side project makes money they're not going to come after me
there is NEVER any certainty that your counterparty won't come after you, even if you think your contract is "unambiguous"
because that not how the system works
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me so far the biggest thing holding me back is the lack of CI/CD.
What do you mean? https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/
I have several projects I’d want to move over but thats enough of a barrier for me to lose interest. There’s also Forgejo Actions but I assume paying for your own runner is probably more expensive than GitHub.
I always wonder what GitHub has that Codeberg doesn't. It's a shame this isn't as popular. It seems like developers, of all people, are willingly letting their code be AI piggybacked.
Codeberg suffers from the same problem as sourcehut. They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them. Sourcehut for example is hostile towards cryptocurrency related projects. Coderberg is hostile towards private repos.
I pay for Sourcehut hosting. I like that I'm on a system which rejects cryptocurrency projects.