41–50 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.
Exactly, which is what makes the "Microsoft LOVES open source!!!!" angle of this acquisition so strange. If they love open-source so much why did they acquire the closed-source service?
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.
Exactly. For instance Windows source code has been "open source" for about 18 years or so via a license anyone can request. This is still not what most people think of when speaking about open source though. Edit: They call it Shared Source actually: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx
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…
I disagree. If you need a paid license in order to redistribute modified copies, that's really not how developers think of open source and it seems disingenuous to conflate the two meanings. It definitely does not "feel" open source.
Even Microsoft understood this difference, which is why back in the day (before current Microsoft practices) they used to have an initiative called "Shared Source" [0]. Notice how they avoided calling it "open source", since this would have contradicted reasonable expectations about the meaning of the term.
----
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…
> RedHat is the ONLY company managing a reasonable revenue stream while being fully open source For their size. There are other open source projects that are actually profitable. They're just not billion dollar companies. e.g. ghost.org
At some point you have to realize that they need to have scalable business model, and this is what they have chosen to do. Good for them, it is working.
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.
Exactly, which is what makes the "Microsoft LOVES open source!!!!" angle of this acquisition so strange. If they love open-source so much why did they acquire the closed-source service?
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.
Exactly. For instance Windows source code has been "open source" for about 18 years or so via a license anyone can request. This is still not what most people think of when speaking about open source though. Edit: They call it Shared Source actually: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx
> 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?"
Free speech is a superset of free beer, not a subset. The proprietary version of GitLab is publicly viewable and amendable, but it is close source, not open source.
Here's the overlap diagram with a bunch more detail. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html