Gitea Enterprise
about.gitea.comJust an observation: Essentially anyone who works for a significant amount of time on an open source project, wants some way to earn money from it.
In the end all of us have to pay the bills.
I really don’t get this. The only reason anyone ever had to run gitea instead of gitlab or GitHub was that it was a more bare bones but open source alternative. Now they are dropping the open source part and stepping into the arena of competing on enterprise features against gitlab and GitHub? Why would anyone ever chose gitea over them?
This is exactly my feeling - it would be pretty brave for any enterprise to adopt this ahead of incumbents when it is so far behind and they are likely going to start locking away the enterprise features anyway. The whole upside is that all features were open source and could be easily patched/worked around as needed.
I run it in my homelab, because gitlab is really reasource intensive by comparison, and I need it to work when the network is out. The annoying part is that means outside contributions that support enterprise-y features are probably not going to be accepted. Gitea does not appear to use a CLA, so they at least shouldn't be able to re-license existing OSS, but the base license is MIT, so no virality.
Where are they dropping open source?
Seems like they’re just adopting a common model of free open source offerings but with the carrot of enterprise management.
Well, this proves the forgejo fork was justified, now we have an open core version under the same brand as the main project.
It would be interesting to hear from the Gitea contributors who were vehemently denying on here that this would happen when concerns were raised just a few months ago.
How is that a problem? Do you donate or significantly contribute in any other way to Gitea? I don't think so.
Those guys for years and years have been developing a free tool getting almost nothing back in return. Morally there is nothing wrong about this.
And if you think you can do better for free and keep everything open source, you can always contribute to the fork and keep enjoying it.
Clarity and honesty around future plans and incentives are important to those who put the little political capital they have behind adopting projects like this.
Who knows if Forgejo can pull off the technical side, which I do plan to contribute to, but at least they have clear principles.
> which I do plan to contribute to
Let’s change that to
> which I also neglect contributing to
Not a dig against you personally, it’s just a sentiment that many adopt both personally and commercially (which is the more important of the two - given money is involved).
Publicly traded company I work at couldn’t do anything were it not for open source. Do we for pay a cent for open source? No.
I'll consider it when they start eating their own dog food
Wow - I hadn’t noticed that they still use GitHub for their own development. From their long-running migration ticket it seems the project has since grown so large they are basically stuck there too.
Open source community in large uses Github because of the user base, not because their own hosted platform doesn't have some of the features.
Judging by the history on the migration Issue they wanted to migrate independently of the user base - so I don't see how that is relevant to them asking people to trust a platform they don't use themselves.
As much as I don’t like the direction they’re going, it’s understandable that they can’t maintain it for free forever.
I think the gatekeept features are indeed for enterprises and individual users aren’t affected too much. If you’re a company and use Gitea, it would be nice to pay. One thing I don’t know is whether enterprise customers get to review the source code.
A company might switch from Github Enterprise to Gitea Enterprise if they were fed up with GitHub Support (or lack of it) and wanted to be able to run on-prem with k8s.