[nrub]

A month of inactivity and an issue that is 12 days old, and someone is trying to fork the project under a new name?

Seems kind of fickle and impatient. Gogs is a great project, and that thread doesn't seem to imply that it's dead only on a brief hiatus. If development resumes will the new fork merge back in, or will it try to compete?

[skybrian]

It's impatient only if it's a permanent fork. If they merge it in once he gets back, no harm done.

Not sure why it showed up here, though.

[MaulingMonkey]

> It's impatient only if it's a permanent fork. If they merge it in once he gets back, no harm done.

The forked readme.md replaces the contact email in: "If you think there are vulnerabilities in the project, please talk privately to [e-mail]. Thanks!"

That doesn't seem like a temporary fork maneuver.

[anon3_]

In my opinion, this isn't a fork, but a naked hijacking:

- No really consensus / official decision on the issue

- http://gitea.io/

- "Git with a cup of tea,"

When it's done so fast, it feels like a coup.

I understand the right to fork a project, but for a maintainer to be AFK from issues for a few weeks to necessitate a fork is harsh.

[invaliduser]

There is nothing harsh about forking a project. This is exactly the intent of the original license choosen explicitly by the author(s).

Have you read the licence ?

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions

If the author did not want any fork, they would have chosen another one. period.

People should learn about open source before starting bitching and whining about "hijacking". Hijacking, really ? That's not even possible with opensource: forking, sharing, modifying, that's _exactly_ the open source spirit and it's actually backed by the license.

[dilipray]

Exactly, He didn't even give the other guy credits on his work.

[MaulingMonkey]

In the description: "forked from Gogs"

Readme.md's Acknowledgments and Contributors sections appear to still be in place, with the credit-improving (IMO) change of replacing the link text "core team" to "gogs team".

What else would you expect? The github forked-from notice if you use the github button instead of git to fork, I guess? Anything else?

[tboerger]

Why? There is still the version history and the admins of the organizations are the top contributors beside of Unknwon ;). I just started to contribute smaller pieces...

[anon3_]

Why the wink?

I'm trying to figure out if your devoid of the nuance of open source politics, or if you're a huge risk taker.

[garthk]

Now it's serving or proxying gogs.io.

[x5n1]

you never know... let it be, the perils of open sourcing your shit.

[anon3_]

Sure. Technically and legally, you could package that code up and sell it.

The maintainer didn't just make a simple fork. He renamed it, bought a domain, all behind the owners back while he's on vacation.

From an etiquette standpoint, I wouldn't want to work with a maintainer who just hijacks projects. Based on the behavior I've seen, I'm saddened to see this.

This project's contributors are Chinese: https://github.com/gogits/gogs/graphs/contributors. The gross majority of the commits come from a few people - the project has been around for years. And over a period of a few weeks, this happened, by an outsider.

They are probably gfw'd and have difficulty finding a VPN.

[x5n1]

Usually quick and dirty, actually no most forks, don't go anywhere... because of the immense amount of effort needed. Once in a while forks become things like WordPress... but not too often.