| 7 Mar 2024 |
 raitobezarius | * thus it's not open core, by the property of negation | 23:57:02 |
| raitobezarius | i mean this is a dumb article | 23:57:18 |
| raitobezarius | and i thought initially it was another company | 23:57:23 |
| raitobezarius | and it's the TC of Gitea so this is even more ridiculous | 23:57:28 |
 @adam:robins.wtf | It’s just a paid offering on top of the open source version. | 23:57:29 |
| raitobezarius | made by a company whose board is the TC of Gitea | 23:57:45 |
| raitobezarius | there's no conflict of interest | 23:57:48 |
| raitobezarius | maybe the true question should be ok | 23:57:53 |
| raitobezarius | what if I send SAML support to Gitea tomorrow? | 23:57:58 |
| raitobezarius | do they accepti t? | 23:58:01 |
| raitobezarius | * do they accept it? | 23:58:04 |
| @adam:robins.wtf | No | 23:58:05 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @adam:robins.wtf
No why? | 23:58:12 |
| @adam:robins.wtf | I’m sure they’d find some explanation or just ignore it | 23:58:35 |
| raitobezarius | Ah yes but then what you are saying is that you already concluded they are of bad faith and clearly planning to just pull the rug | 23:58:56 |
| 8 Mar 2024 |
| @adam:robins.wtf | Yeah probably a bit, based on the moves since the soft fork what forgejo has said about them. I’d be happy to be wrong and see gitea do amazing things. Unfortunately, I’d argue there’s enough examples in the past to suggest things won’t turn back toward community. | 00:01:43 |
