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.
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?
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...
- 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.