github-starred/gitea
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea.git synced 2026-03-12 02:24:21 -05:00
Code Issues 2.6k Packages Projects Releases 100 Wiki Activity

Copyright in footer is misleading #4205

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-02 05:42:17 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 17 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:17 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @fireglow on GitHub (Oct 28, 2019).

I think the "© Gitea" in templates/base/footer_content.tmpl#L4 is misleading.
While the page is rendered by Gitea, the actual content is not copyrighted by the Gitea project.

Other code-hosting sites like GitHub or GitLab do not show such a copyright.
Sites like nytimes.com or washingtonpost.com do, because the content displayed is actually theirs.

I therefore propose the wording to be changed to something clearer, like "Powered by Gitea", or "Generated by Gitea".

Originally created by @fireglow on GitHub (Oct 28, 2019). I think the "© Gitea" in [templates/base/footer_content.tmpl#L4](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/09b281a6ac445c6bae8399b838005c6be1a9c2eb/templates/base/footer_content.tmpl#L4) is misleading. While the page is rendered by Gitea, the actual content is not copyrighted by the Gitea project. Other code-hosting sites like GitHub or GitLab do not show such a copyright. Sites like nytimes.com or washingtonpost.com do, because the content displayed is actually theirs. I therefore propose the wording to be changed to something clearer, like "Powered by Gitea", or "Generated by Gitea".
GiteaMirror added the type/proposal label 2025-11-02 05:42:17 -06:00
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:18 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MayMeow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

I can make PR if you decide which one sentence to use :)

@MayMeow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): I can make PR if you decide which one sentence to use :)
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:18 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@6543 commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

do we need "© Gitea" for leagal therms in fooder?

-> Licence MIT

@6543 commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): do we need "© Gitea" for leagal therms in fooder? -> Licence MIT
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alexanderadam commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

do we need "© Gitea" for leagal therms in fooder?

I strongly doubt it because Gitea is not a legal entity (like a company for example) so it probably can't hold any rights anyway.
AFAIK the particular authors own the rights of what they did. Which is true even if you don't write it on every code line you wrote because it's clarified in the the given license.

Kind of related but offtopic anyway. Click to show. So IMHO the license must be distributed as well and I'm not sure why the JS libraries are accessible as a link in the footer but the Gitea library itself is not.

But again, this would be another issue anyway and of course I'm not a lawyer. So nothing that I write might have any legal value.
Also the license situation of Gitea should be clarified anyway because it seems that it currently uses non-free dependencies.

@alexanderadam commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): > do we need "© Gitea" for leagal therms in fooder? I strongly doubt it because Gitea is not a legal entity (like a company for example) so it probably can't hold any rights anyway. AFAIK the particular _authors_ own the rights of what they did. Which is true even if you don't write it on every code line you wrote because it's clarified in the the given license. <details> <summary>Kind of related but offtopic anyway. Click to show.</summary> So IMHO the license must be distributed as well and I'm not sure why the JS libraries are accessible as a link in the footer but the Gitea library itself is not. But again, this would be another issue anyway and of course I'm not a lawyer. So nothing that I write might have any legal value. Also [the license situation of Gitea should be clarified anyway because it seems that it currently uses non-free dependencies](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/8575). </details>
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lunny commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

In fact, that copyright is not related your codes on gitea instance. For example, you can see below in github. But github will not own the repositories' copyright on github. @fireglow I think you are wrong. Go to this page's bottom you will find it.

image

Even if we are not a company, but we have an organization. A person could hold copyright, a company could also, why not an organization?

@lunny commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): In fact, that copyright is not related your codes on gitea instance. For example, you can see below in github. But github will not own the repositories' copyright on github. @fireglow I think you are wrong. Go to this page's bottom you will find it. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/81045/67760112-a81e7300-fa7b-11e9-837d-cab47ca602f4.png) Even if we are not a company, but we have an organization. A person could hold copyright, a company could also, why not an organization?
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alexanderadam commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

Even if we are not a company, but we have an organization. A person could hold copyright, a company could also, why not an organization?

A legal organization can of course. I'm not sure whether this is a proper wording then.
Or can you just describe who is the organization? And is this organization represented on the Github organization?
Because if so this would mean only those 24 people who are part of the organization own the rights on Gitea.
Which is obviously not true because all of the authors of have some rights on it as the license says.

So to conclude: I would still say that © Gitea is absolutely not clear here because it's not clear who or what Gitea is from a legal perspective.
Even © The Gitea Authors would be clearer.

Otherwise I might have missed what the Gitea organization is and what it's statutes are.

@alexanderadam commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): > Even if we are not a company, but we have an organization. A person could hold copyright, a company could also, why not an organization? A legal organization can of course. I'm not sure whether this is a proper wording then. Or can you just describe who _is_ the organization? And is this organization represented on the Github organization? Because if so this would mean [only those 24 people who are part of the organization](https://github.com/orgs/go-gitea/people) own the rights on Gitea. Which is obviously **not** true because _all_ of the authors of have some rights on it [as the license says](https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/master/LICENSE#L1). So to conclude: I would still say that `© Gitea` is absolutely _not_ clear here because it's not clear who or what Gitea is from a legal perspective. Even `© The Gitea Authors` would be clearer. Otherwise I might have missed what the Gitea organization is and what it's statutes are.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:19 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@fireglow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

Let's not get off track here, the issue is the "©", not the enitity name.
The "©" suggests that Gitea holds the copyright to the content of the page.

@fireglow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): Let's not get off track here, the issue is the "©", not the enitity name. The "©" suggests that Gitea holds the copyright to the content of the page.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:20 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@fireglow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

@lunny you are right, GitHub does that. One of my addons hides that.
GitHubs reasoning for that is outlined here: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#d-user-generated-content
That does not apply to self-hosted gitea instances.
Therefore I think the "notfix" label is premature.

@fireglow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): @lunny you are right, GitHub does that. One of my addons hides that. GitHubs reasoning for that is outlined here: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#d-user-generated-content That does not apply to self-hosted gitea instances. Therefore I think the "notfix" label is premature.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:20 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@fireglow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

@MayMeow I think "Powered by Gitea" would be fine, since it does more than merely generate code listings, like for example cgit (which uses "generated by").

@fireglow commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): @MayMeow I think "Powered by Gitea" would be fine, since it does more than merely generate code listings, like for example cgit (which uses "generated by").
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:21 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

Powered by should be ok imho

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): `Powered by` should be ok imho
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:21 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lunny commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019):

@alexanderadam maybe you are right. Since gitea is a non-registered organization, but we have organization join conditions and owners elections.

@ gitea will almost mean © The Gitea Authors. It's different from what you can see from other sites. The maintainers represents the gitea authors to do some community things.

@fireglow And the instances users could add theirs' term services to say what like github did since gitea support custom pages.

@lunny commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2019): @alexanderadam maybe you are right. Since gitea is a non-registered organization, but we have organization join conditions and owners elections. `@ gitea` will almost mean `© The Gitea Authors`. It's different from what you can see from other sites. The maintainers represents the gitea authors to do some community things. @fireglow And the instances users could add theirs' term services to say what like github did since gitea support custom pages.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:21 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

I fixed it, and this is what it looks now
image

I do not know how to use i18n though. Is it simply be a case of replacing the text with {{.i18n.Tr "powered-by"}} and adding a corresponding string to the default language file?

Also, I wonder if Gitea in that text should be a link to gitea.io:
image

Further, should there be a separator between Powered by Gitea and Version?

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): I fixed it, and this is what it looks now ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5877043/67937601-3db52200-fba4-11e9-8bb0-10efdfd1c860.png) I do not know how to use i18n though. Is it simply be a case of replacing the text with `{{.i18n.Tr "powered-by"}}` and adding a corresponding string to the default language file? Also, I wonder if `Gitea` in that text should be a link to gitea.io: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5877043/67938232-75709980-fba5-11e9-9e94-e0549024d24c.png) Further, should there be a separator between `Powered by Gitea` and `Version`?
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:21 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

It should probably be something like this:

Powered by Gitea version 1.11...

where Gitea is link to https://gitea.io/ and two translatable strings Powered by and version

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): It should probably be something like this: ``` Powered by Gitea version 1.11... ``` where `Gitea` is link to https://gitea.io/ and two translatable strings `Powered by` and `version`
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:22 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

I do not know how to use i18n though. Is it simply be a case of replacing the text with {{.i18n.Tr "powered-by"}} and adding a corresponding string to the default language file?

Yes, only in en-US locale

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): > I do not know how to use i18n though. Is it simply be a case of replacing the text with `{{.i18n.Tr "powered-by"}}` and adding a corresponding string to the default language file? Yes, only in en-US locale
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:22 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

It should probably be something like this:

Powered by Gitea version 1.11...

where Gitea is link to https://gitea.io/ and two translatable strings Powered by and version

That sounds good

Yes, only in en-US locale

Good

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): > It should probably be something like this: > > ``` > Powered by Gitea version 1.11... > ``` > > where `Gitea` is link to https://gitea.io/ and two translatable strings `Powered by` and `version` That sounds good > Yes, only in en-US locale Good
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:22 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

Looking at the template, it seems that Version is already a translatable string

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): Looking at the template, it seems that `Version` is already a translatable string
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:23 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

Since version is a translatable string, but it is capitalised (and likely used in other places as-is), should a new one be created?

EDIT: might as-well add that making Powered by translatable worked first try 👍

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): Since version is a translatable string, but it is capitalised (and likely used in other places as-is), should a new one be created? EDIT: might as-well add that making `Powered by` translatable worked first try 👍
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-02 05:42:23 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

@alexanderadam I just realised that you had already made a PR. My version of the fix is already an i18n string, and has Gitea be a link to gitea.io.

Do you want to continue with your PR or shall I take over?

@0x5c commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): @alexanderadam I just realised that you had already made a PR. My version of the fix is already an i18n string, and has `Gitea` be a link to [gitea.io](https://gitea.io/). Do you want to continue with your PR or shall I take over?
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
$20
$250
$50
$500
backport/done
💎 Bounty
docs-update-needed
good first issue
hacktoberfest
issue/bounty
issue/confirmed
issue/critical
issue/duplicate
issue/needs-feedback
issue/not-a-bug
issue/regression
issue/stale
issue/workaround
lgtm/need 2
modifies/api
modifies/translation
outdated/backport/v1.18
outdated/theme/markdown
outdated/theme/timetracker
performance/bigrepo
performance/cpu
performance/memory
performance/speed
pr/breaking
proposal/accepted
proposal/rejected
pr/wip
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 reviewed/wontfix
💰 Rewarded
skip-changelog
status/blocked
topic/accessibility
topic/api
topic/authentication
topic/build
topic/code-linting
topic/commit-signing
topic/content-rendering
topic/deployment
topic/distribution
topic/federation
topic/gitea-actions
topic/issues
topic/lfs
topic/mobile
topic/moderation
topic/packages
topic/pr
topic/projects
topic/repo
topic/repo-migration
topic/security
topic/theme
topic/ui
topic/ui-interaction
topic/ux
topic/webhooks
topic/wiki
type/bug
type/deprecation
type/docs
type/enhancement
type/feature
type/miscellaneous
type/proposal
type/question
type/refactoring
type/summary
type/testing
type/upstream
No Label type/proposal
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/gitea#4205
Delete Branch "%!s()"

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?