31–40 of 162 posts
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.
> 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?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
From https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE : > ...and all such modifications and/or patches may only be used, copied, modified, displayed, distributed, or otherwise exploited with a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats. You can do all that assuming you have a license for your production users. It's not GNU-style Free Software, sure, but it still feels…
The ability to reuse code is IMO an important part of both open source and free software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
From https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE : > ...and all such modifications and/or patches may only be used, copied, modified, displayed, distributed, or otherwise exploited with a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats. You can do all that assuming you have a license for your production users. It's not GNU-style Free Software, sure, but it still feels…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
From https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE : > ...and all such modifications and/or patches may only be used, copied, modified, displayed, distributed, or otherwise exploited with a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats. You can do all that assuming you have a license for your production users. It's not GNU-style Free Software, sure, but it still feels…
Their license says...
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may copy and modify the Software for development and testing purposes, without requiring a subscription. You agree that GitLab and/or its licensors (as applicable) retain all right, title and interest in and to all such modifications. You are not granted any other rights beyond what is expressly stated herein. Subject to the foregoing, it is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the Software.
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. RedHa…
For their size. There are other open source projects that are actually profitable. They're just not billion dollar companies. e.g. ghost.org
I've never been very impressed by GitLab's claims of openness. The only difference seems to be that you can get most of the useful things of GitLab as free software whereas Darwin, Linux, or LAPACK+FFTW are not the most attractive parts of macOS, Android, or Matlab.
Call me when you manage to make a business without forcing any kind of EULA whatsoever on your customers. That will be the real innovation.
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. RedHa…
I don't like/love GitLab or GitHub in an emotional sense. They're good tools, but they're tools.
Bitkeeper was also a very good tool, offering immense value compared to any of the other options there, and the effective death of Bitkeeper and the existence of Git was an incredibly good thing for both the world as a whole and my personal workflow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper