Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

akr.am

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 162 posts

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#71

Post by Vinnl »

mankash666 wrote: post #29

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…

To illustrate: I used to use Gitorious back when, because it was fully open source. Its founders couldn't keep the lights on/weren't motivated to continue working on it any more. Instead of waiting for it to shut down, GitLab acquired it and (of course) facilitated easy migration from Gitorious to GitLab if so desired.

In other words: GitLab's strategy allows it to open source as much as possible, while also actually developing and maintaining the project. At least for now, it's one of the most successful projects to do so.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#72

Post by mankash666 »

ModernMech wrote: post #63
mankash666 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ghost is NOT a for-profit company, you can't compare them to companies whose mission is profit. Unless you're implying the pursuit of profit to be unacceptable, this is an apples to oranges comparison

> you can't compare them to companies whose mission is profit. Why not? They're a non-profit, sure, but that doesn't make them a charity. Like Redhat, they also don't have an obligation to give anything away for free. They just have an obligation to make sure at the end of the day, there's no money left over in the form of profit. And yet, they manage to not only generate revenue on an open source project, they make…

I don't see the logic here. Ghost's mission is to stay independent and afloat, and GitHub/Gitlab's to make the most money they can. These are indeed different and oftentimes opposing mission statements. The fact they all make software is co-incidental.

My thesis stands - as a for-profit entity intent on maximizing profits and net-worth, empirically open source hasn't provided a vehicle to achieve those goals. At best, it allows a company to stay afloat, but it doesn't in any way guarantee maximizing net worth and profit of a company.

So, every-time you pith open-source as a viable alternative, you're confusing the mission statement. It isn't to stay afloat, it is to maximize wealth

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#73

Post by __manuels__ »

sytse wrote: post #26
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"

You are right, looks like the author did not even try to make any enquiries...

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#75

Post by TAForObvReasons »

bdcravens wrote: post #41
draw_down wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.

Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#76

Post by da_chicken »

geofft wrote: post #24
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 "…

> 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.

I would disagree. Both the terms "open source" and "free software" existed prior to the open-source software movement. Either way, you don't get to co-opt the plain English meaning just because you've invented your own jargon. That's not how language works.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#77

Post by amingilani »

There's honestly nothing new here. GitLab calls itself open core because only the Community Edition (CE) is open-source and the Enterprise Edition is source-available.

Anyone, after five minutes of looking at GitLab.com, knows this. They aren't hiding it and it's already incredibly public.

They've even publicly talk about their 100+ user-relevant rule for features that decides what CE doesn't get [1]

I don't understand what compelled the author to write this but GitLab CE really is open-source. Stop the FUD.

[1]: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10923838

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#78

Post by dpark »

dnomad wrote: post #65
dpark wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's essentially a branding criticism (labeling them "enterprise" features) rather than a criticism of the "open core" model.

This isn't really the "open core" model if the core is not actually open. GP would like to contribute these features themselves to the open core but GitLab likely would not allow it.

I don't agree with this assessment. Open Source does not require that the maintainers will allow you to push changes upstream that they don't like. Is AOSP not open source? Chromium? Atom? Linux? Linus rejects a lot of stuff.

Now, it may be poor stewardship if valuable changes are rejected, but Open Source is about your freedom with the code, not the willingness of the project maintainers to commit your pet features.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#79

Post by tazjin »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #75
bdcravens wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.

Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.

The Github repository for the kernel is a mirror of the actual kernel.org repository.

The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#80

Post by cma »

tazjin wrote: post #79
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.

The Github repository for the kernel is a mirror of the actual kernel.org repository. The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.

He's not talking about them using Github as his example, he's talking about them using Bitkeeper in the past.
Post reply on HN