chore: change the license to GPLv3-or-later #773
No reviewers
n0toose
sclu1034
viceice
mfenniak
Gusted
Beowulf
crystal
pat-s
oliverpool
jerger
fnetX
0ko
Labels
No labels
FreeBSD
Kind/Breaking
Kind/Bug
Kind/Chore
Kind/DependencyUpdate
Kind/Documentation
Kind/Enhancement
Kind/Feature
Kind/Security
Kind/Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
Windows
linux-powerpc64le
linux-riscv64
linux-s390x
run-end-to-end-tests
run-forgejo-tests
No milestone
No project
No assignees
11 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
forgejo/runner!773
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "earl-warren/runner:wip-gpl"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
The Forgejo runner is part of the Forgejo project. The licensing
agreement in the governance repository reads like this:
The first step is to update the LICENSE file to reflect that
decision. The individual copyright notice of each source file will be
updated when and if relevant. If a change is made that is eligible for
copyright, the author may decide change the copyright notice from MIT
or Apache 2 to GPLv3-or-later.
Refs licensing agreement
codeberg.org/forgejo/governance@6eb522282f/AGREEMENTS.md (licensing)Refs blog post about the licensing agreement https://forgejo.org/2024-08-gpl/
chore: change the license from MIT to GPLv3-or-later [skip ci] [skip cascade]to chore: change the license from MIT to GPLv3-or-laterAlthough I'm convinced this change is in line with the governance decision on licensing and with the spirit of the Forgejo project itself, I would like your advice on how to best communicate about this. My inclination would be to add a section to the next monthly update. I don't think it is worth a dedicated blog post. It is an important step but it will also not come as a surprise to anyone.
What do you think?
chore: change the license from MIT to GPLv3-or-laterto chore: change the license from MIT to GPLv3-or-later [skip ci] [skip cascade]1572f0e98e334d62c590I also think a section in the monthly update, with a link to the existing blog post about the license change should be enough.
Maybe also a more prominent entry in the next major version's changelog (just a sentence at the top).
There have been talks about picking from act recently. Has there been any (successful? attempts to upstream code from Forgejo to act? I wonder if it might make sense to revisit this now that there might be another fork of act?
I 100% agree to the GPL requirement to the runner part, but I wonder if it makes sense to hold back for the act part.
@fnetX wrote in #773 (comment):
Not really. Ever since the Forgejo runner started there were no significant attempt.
Given the current state of the act project, contributing to it would be a waste of time. A year ago it was different. This is the primary reason why the act codebase was merged into the runner a few days ago.
chore: change the license from MIT to GPLv3-or-later [skip ci] [skip cascade]to chore: change the license to GPLv3-or-later [skip ci] [skip cascade]334d62c590tof14fd13caechore: change the license to GPLv3-or-later [skip ci] [skip cascade]to chore: change the license to GPLv3-or-laterchore: change the license to GPLv3-or-laterto chore: change the license to GPLv3-or-later [skip ci] [skip cascade]@viceice @sclu1034 the update of this pull request is a rebase and minor rewording to take into account that there also are Apache 2 licensed files.
I will wait on more Forgejo contributors to review before moving forward. It is a step that can be difficult to revert and it is best if this is approved by a large number of the most active contributors. It can wait a few weeks for that to happen, there is no immediate urgency.
I haven’t been contributing to the runner and I cannot judge the license change concerning the runner and act. Thus, I abstain from reviewing here. I like the GPL and think the change is well covered by the agreement within Forgejo.
@mahlzahn this is fair. My thinking was (probably misguided) that this is a change that has a global impact on the Forgejo project. I would want to know about it when / if that happens in a part of Forgejo I'm not involved with. If only to state "I saw it, but I'll abstain", as you just did.
Conceptually 👍
I wonder if adding SPDX metadata to files at this point indicating their license would help clarify the situation for all future changes?
I think it would.
chore: change the license to GPLv3-or-later [skip ci] [skip cascade]to chore: change the license to GPLv3-or-laterf14fd13cae7d6fde1025cascading-pr updated at actions/setup-forgejo#593
7d6fde102560d976dae5cascading-pr updated at actions/setup-forgejo#593
No change other than rebasing and fixing an integration tests that was verifying MIT instead of GPL.
@earl-warren wrote in #773 (comment):
Does this address your concern? I would appreciate if you could formally approve in case it does (with an "Approve" to the PR that is 😁).
@0ko @n0toose @jerger @pat-s @crystal @oliverpool I wanted to bring this change to your attention. It is an important decision for the Forgejo project and I'm making my due diligence in making sure Forgejo contributors who I perceive to have been active this year have a chance to voice any concern they may have.
If you are not opposed but do not feel informed enough to approve, it is fine if you just say so. What matters is that you are aware it is happening. I would not want that to be a surprise to anyone.
I'm fine with this change. I'd still love to see upstreaming efforts of this code in the future and hope the license change does not block it. However, I also think that the Forgejo runner is even more likely to benefit from the license change.
I feel I'm missing something since that's the third time you suggest this would be a good thing. How do you see that happening, in the best case possible? Let say someone contributing to the Forgejo runner spare no effort to upstream what has been done to Nektos ACT, who exactly would they talk to?
I am not a user or a contributor of runner, but I approve of this change.
Having uniform licensing across different first-party Forgejo software is good.
I can't find any evidence of new commits being exchanged between Act on GitHub and the fork on Forgejo.code, and with more time passing it seems less likely to happen.
So now is a good time for this change.
@fnetX wrote in #773 (comment):
I found this discussion where you were advocating for GPLv3+ and I was advocating for keeping the license for the sake of contributing back to ACT. So the roles were effectively inverted back then, which I forgot.
What changed my mind, 9 months later, is the low activity in ACT and the creation of a fork by the main contributor. It did not receive much attention in the past six months.
Moreover the pace of changes in 2024 was already low. Because the main repository has so many stars, I don't believe the owner will be willing to give it to someone else, even to keep it going.
60d976dae5e93a14567ae93a14567abf0ee8c229I believe enough time has passed (a month) and it was advertised so everyone got a chance to voice their concerns. Let's merge this.
i think this should be released as another major version, but it can wait
It is a legal breaking change indeed.