[daenney]

So first of all, no one stole anything. Wether the author should have released this under a permissive license or not is a different debate. However, he did, so no stealing, literally.

The author is also not unwilling to collaborate. Just look at the history of accepted PRs for example. However, he is unwilling to give others wider access and control over the direction of Gogs (which is totally his right):

> This happened not before trying to convince @Unknwon about giving write permissions to more people, among the community. He rightly considered Gogs his own creature and didn’t want to let it grow outside of him, thus a fork was necessary in order to set that code effectively free.

As to whether it stings I'm not sure. They had conversations around this topic and the conclusion was that a fork was what's needed for what (part of) the community wanted. Though it's possible for the original author to see this as a slap in the face I hope he sees it more as a huge testament to what he's achieved with Gogs so far.