GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source • Hacker News Board

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#21

Post by dpedu » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

nightfly wrote: post #13

Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. My organization would benefit from the "Rebase merge requests before merge" and "Use fast-forward merges when possible" features quite a bit, and we are an in educational environment with lots of volunteers so using the Enterprise edition isn't viable at all. These features aren't technicall…

I'm not familiar; are the features you mentioned new and perhaps not "ready" or ported to Gitlab OSS? But if they're older features in "proprietary" Gitlab then I'd have to agree.

Edit: a bit off topic, but why do you want "Rebase merge requests before merge" - wouldn't `s/merge/testing/` be much more useful?

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#22

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

> GitLab has two version of its software - GitLab Community Edition, the open-source version, and GitLab Enterprise Edition.

I think the context is the comparison with Github. So where is the Github open source community edition with MIT licensing?

> The question then is - what chunk of GitLab will be considered “core” in the future?

None of the additional enterprise features seem to be core features so it's just one core then? Maybe the author is not a native English speaker so it's not clear what a "core" is.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#23

Post by Matt3o12_ » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #5

devmunchies wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it is also commonly understood that open source means you can change and then distribute your changes. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia[0]:

> Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.

You cannot do that with Gitlab EE but you can do it with the community version. The community version is a subset of Gitlab EE with a few features missing. But I completely agree. You cannot have it both ways. I don't think Gitlab could support their work just by providing commercial support. They need to have a "not so open source" version to sell. And just providing you with the source code to verify (and possible modify and fix if they were to ever go bankrupt), is a huge advantage over a fully closed source solution such as Github.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#24

Post by geofft » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: 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?"

"Open source" is an incredibly ambiguous term. Some people use it to mean the literal "the source is open to the world." Some people use it to mean the Open Source Definition from the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/osd , which is a very small set of modifications of the Debian Free Software Guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines to make them not talk about Debian or use the term "free software". GitLab EE does not fit the Open Source Definition at all.

Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of charge," but in practice there's a lot more ambiguity in the former, not the latter.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#25

Post by n4r9 » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

I think I understand why this article was written, but earlier today I looked up GitLab on Wikipedia and feel like I came away with a more comprehensive understanding of GitLab's structure along with its history and motivations and with less reading time to boot.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#26

Post by sytse » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

Kostic wrote: post #12

I cannot disagree more. The open source core is very featureful for its price, it's easy enough to host on premise and UX is very good. Granted, the paid version has some nice features and there were some problems in the past when people wanted to integrate features found in the paid version to the open core but that's the price of living in current times. Money is still needed to create and maintain something. Maybe…

Thanks! The article asked "what chunk of GitLab will be considered “core” in the future?". We try to detail this on https://about.gitlab.com/stewardship/#what-features-are-paid... "All stages of the DevOps lifecycle is available in GitLab CE"

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#27

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:16 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #5

devmunchies wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#28

Post by jph » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:16 PM UTC

GitLab LICENSE file: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE

The way I read it, GitLab is open source in three senses:

1) GitLab core is MIT

2) GitLab enterprise edition is all published code

3) The GitLab EE license specifically gives the user permission to modify code and publish patches within the broad EE license.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#29

Post by mankash666 » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

GitLab or ANY company has no obligation to give away it's work under liberal OSS terms. GitLab is NOT a charity, the hypocritical expectation of OSS while still expecting silicon-valley style exorbitant compensation for being an employee is clearly at odds, companies can only afford such salaries if they eke out handsome profits. Ergo, if you expect a good salary for your work, prepare to pay for good products.

RedHat is the ONLY company managing a reasonable revenue stream while being fully open source. If you like/love GitLab/GitHub, you'll want them to thrive financially, and there's no clearer path to financial stability than charging for close source software, as proven by decades of enterprise and consumer facing companies.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#30

Post by ng12 » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

adambrenecki wrote: post #11

ng12 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is open source though: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ Open source doesn't mean you can't charge for your work.

Open source doesn't just mean that the source is publicly available, either, though. This definitely isn't an open source license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE

Why not? You can modify/redistribute it, you can't just deploy it to production without having a valid subscription. It's not Free Software, but it is Open Source.