Subject: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 23:17:36 +0100

Tomas Volf <[email-masked]> skribis:

>> (https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md)

> I went through the Terms of Use and picked few points I considers
> problematic and/or note worthy.

As mentioned in my initial reply¹, this shouldn’t be frame as us-vs-them
(let alone harsh language), but rather as:

  1. Is it a blocker?
  2. If not, how can we work with Codeberg e.V. on that once we’ve
     switched to Codeberg.

Having now read them, I personally find the ToU reasonable.

¹ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2025-02/msg00030.html

> § 2 (1) 3. looks pretty annoying for occasional contributors.

That’s reasonable: it’s a non-profit, they have to make space once in a
while, but that’s okay: Git is distributed, people have a local copy.

> § 2 (1) 4. forces us to rewrite repository history in case of
> compromise,

I definitely don’t read it that way: it’s not about “compromised” code
as in “CVE in guix-daemon”, and it’s not about genuine bugs either.

> § 2 (4) is annoying for people not familiar with German law

This is quite theoretical (whereas takedown notices in the US on GitHub
and the likes are something very tangible.)

> § 2 (5), especially the "its reputation" part, can easily lead to
> loosing Codeberg account, and therefore ability to contribute to Guix,
> over, for example, Mastodon toot complaining that Codeberg it down
> again.  After all, that could very well be considered "Action intended
> to damage the [Codeberg's] reputation".

Again that’s a bit of a stretch, but more importantly it’s framed as if
(1) we were dealing with a hostile adversary, and (2) we were customers
not owing respect to the volunteers making it work.

Let’s be very clear: that’s not the spirit of this proposal.  We’ll be
using a service set up by other volunteers and we’ll be joining forces
in some way—financially or otherwise.  There’s going to be downtimes and
problems, but we’re going to deal with them together.

> § 3 (4) is pretty WTF.  They could at least send an email.  I plan to
> keep working from the Emacs, so I am pretty sure I will not check the
> dashboard for announcement messages regarding ToU changes every three
> months.

I agree it’s not great, but it’s typically the kind of thing to discuss
with them, once we’ve moved; perhaps sending email would be acceptable
for them.

> § 4 (4) is the typical "we can nuke your account at any time for any
> reason".  Nice.

Yes, that makes sense to me.

The remaining paragraphs are harsh if not hostile (please avoid that
tone in the future) and hopefully covered by the rest of that reply.

Thanks,
Ludo’.