[bwblabs]

Correct, also see the initial discussion about changing the license: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/pulls/24#issuecommen...

The issue with deviating from the upstream license is that only the code author can upstream a patch, since GPLv3 cannot be changed by a non-author of the code to MIT. Resulting in less being patched upstream, and so more merge conflicts, the maintenance burden I was talking about.

[ekjhgkejhgk]

> Forgejo is more busy managing ideals, than creating software.

But managing ideals is far more important than creating software. Software is just a tool. It's a mean to an end, it's not the end in itself.

If software improves humanity we should create it. If not, we shouldn't. We shouldn't create software just because. We can, but that's not ethical.

And regarding your comments that "the original contributors stayed with Gitea", as if that's a point in favor of Gitea: Well of course! If the original contributors wanted copyleft that's how they would've licensed it. To me that just reinforces that I don't want to contribute to their project.

[bwblabs]

Not sure why you misquoted, I said "the main contributors stayed with Gitea", also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929247#45931139

When deciding which software fork to pick, it is about the development power. Also note my point about security: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45929247#45930310