[maxbond]

I hope you & the rest of the community will consider writing a detailed postmortem. I take from some of your comments that there has been a series of issues which has culminated in this schism. As someone who has (currently stealth mode) open source projects they'd like to release with a similar model, with a commercial entity supporting a broader community project, I'd appreciate understanding what I should take from this in structuring my project. I don't think I'm alone in that.

[tpxl]

Godot has a similar structure. The engine is MIT licensed, it's a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy and one of the lead developers has a company that does Switch and PlayStation ports. The only difference between this and Gitea that I see is who owns the trademarks or whatever (SFC vs the gitea company), and everyone's fine with the way things run in Godot.

[Macha]

Compare Godot's governance page (https://godotengine.org/governance) with this blog post and the previous one. Godot's governance page indicates, clearly, that Godot is owned by the community and SFC is empowered to ensure that happens. There's no acknowledgement of the existence of W4Games (who are also not called Godot Engine Ltd), much less any governance role. This makes W4Game's position as "just one consulting company amongst many" which is much more palatable. If W4 wanted to take Godot to an open core or visible source model then, it would have to fork, despite containing the lead developers.

The worry here is that Gitea Limited will be in the same position as ElasticSearch in a few years and they've given no structural roadblocks against that while dropping community leadership for commercial leadership