Live data from Hacker News

GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

akr.am

1–10 of 162 posts

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#2
> Both versions have their sources published on GitLab with the former having an MIT license and the latter a proprietary one which requires a paid subscription with GitLab.

So, it is open source? Doesn't this fall under the adage of "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?"

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#3
post #2

> Both versions have their sources published on GitLab with the former having an MIT license and the latter a proprietary one which requires a paid subscription with GitLab. So, it is open source? Doesn't this fall under the adage of "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?"

the enterprise version is not opened source? big deal. gotta support free software somehow and that is a respectable way.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#5
post #2

> Both versions have their sources published on GitLab with the former having an MIT license and the latter a proprietary one which requires a paid subscription with GitLab. So, it is open source? Doesn't this fall under the adage of "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?"

the enterprise version is not opened source? big deal. gotta support free software somehow and that is a respectable way.

It is open source though: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/

Open source doesn't mean you can't charge for your work.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#7
post #2

> Both versions have their sources published on GitLab with the former having an MIT license and the latter a proprietary one which requires a paid subscription with GitLab. So, it is open source? Doesn't this fall under the adage of "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?"

Usually when people speak about open source, they include not only not being able to view the source, but also the possibility to modify, distribute and use it (and modified versions) in the requirements for a license to be labeled an open source license.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#8
Even if every last byte of Gitlab and the bits behind it aren't OSS, it is lightyears ahead of GitHub in terms of source availability. And while I suspect the gap will only grow, I'd love for Microsoft to make me wrong.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#9
> Furthermore, the free version running on GitLab.com is the Enterprise Edition. This means that if you wish to move from their hosted service to your own one, you would be losing several features and would even have to pay to import your projects based on the above list.

Just because GitLab.com runs EE doesn't mean all EE features are made available to all users. Most if not all EE-only features are behind a paywall on GitLab.com; you still have to pay to use them even if you don't self-host.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#10
post #2

> Both versions have their sources published on GitLab with the former having an MIT license and the latter a proprietary one which requires a paid subscription with GitLab. So, it is open source? Doesn't this fall under the adage of "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?"

Please don't confuse Open Source and Free Software. Open Source' ideals are not "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?". That is something of Free Software. Open Source does not care about the Free Software ideals. Except for that one thing, that source code shall be available.
Post reply on HN