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

51–60 of 162 posts

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#51

Post by the_af »

ng12 wrote: post #30
adambrenecki wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free Software and Open Source's differences are more philosophical than technical/legal [0]. This means that if something cannot be Free Software it cannot, more often than not, be Open Source either.

If you cannot deploy it without a paid subscription, it's not Open Source by most commonly accepted definitions of the term.

----

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en....

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#52

Post by dpark »

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…

> Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does.

I understand that criticism, but what else would you gate except useful features? The entire point of this style of sales is to enable a "freemium" model with highly valuable features locked behind the pay-gate.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#53

Post by webkike »

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 "…

Agreed. I personally prefer the term libre software because it is entirely unambiguous

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#54

Post by djsumdog »

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…

Alfresco does this as well, and they removed things that worked in the community edition, like clustering, requiring people either switch to the EE version or implement the missing/removed features themselves as a plugin or fork.

TypeSafe/LightBend removed a fully functional MS SQL implementation from Slick.

I've written about this type of split in OSS software and what it means for developers:

https://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source...

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#55

Post by amenod »

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 am genuinly curious about your view, so please be patient with me when answering.

The way I see it, someone is providing a free product and is maintaining it. They are even doing (imho) a great job. Of course, that costs money - and we only need to look at other opensource solutions to see what kind of UX they have if the creators are only charging for support.

So the options I see are:

  - have a worse product, but truly opensource
  - have a great product, fully opensource, but some features will never be added
If you develop the missing features, you would need to maintain a clone. You could do it if you really wanted to, it would take a lot less work than developing the whole solution from stratch. But - and this distinction is important for me - if the company ever went under or, worse, got sold to Oracle, community would almost surely take the CE sources, add those features and maintain a clone. At least for a while...

In my view GitLab is a perfect example how to make a sustainable business around opensource core. So the question is - can you think of a better sustainable business model to support development of opensource solution?

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#56

Post by shazow »

Like most things, "Open Source" is relative and spans a gradient.

It can be open but undocumented, it can be open but with closed components, it can be open but broken, it can be open but closed to outside contributors, and so on.

The most important question is whether it's forkable?

If X decided to go against its community, how painful would it be to fork X and for the community to continue without the maintainer's support?

Is GitLab more open source than GitHub? Absolutely.

If I committed substantial resources integrating with "the GitLab way of doing things" and then GitLab pulled the rug on me, would I be able to retain my investment by forking off the product? For most things, yes.

I'm all for GitLab becoming even more open source, but they deserve the accolades they've gotten so far.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#57

Post by tonyarkles »

dpark wrote: post #52
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…

> Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. I understand that criticism, but what else would you gate except useful features? The entire point of this style of sales is to enable a "freemium" model with highly valuable features locked behind the pay-gate.

In the parent's defense, the two features listed aren't really what I think of when I think of "enterprise" features. I think more of things like SAML and Active Directory integration, auditing, etc.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#58

Post by dnomad »

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…

The incentives are really not aligned here. Over time it's likely more features will be removed from or never added to CE. Gitlab provides only a very basic plugin system [1] so that nobody else can provide these basic features into CE. (Instead users are encouraged to contribute back to CE.) So, yes, the only option is "fork and fuck off." I don't predict a happy future for users of GitLab CE.

[1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/administration/plugins.html

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#59

Post by ramshorns »

It depends what you care about. Some would say it doesn't matter if the server software is free and open source, so long as you can use the service without running any proprietary software yourself. And GitLab is pretty good in that regard, with the website's JavaScript under a free license.

https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#60

Post by dpark »

tonyarkles wrote: post #57
dpark wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. I understand that criticism, but what else would you gate except useful features? The entire point of this style of sales is to enable a "freemium" model with highly valuable features locked behind the pay-gate.

In the parent's defense, the two features listed aren't really what I think of when I think of "enterprise" features. I think more of things like SAML and Active Directory integration, auditing, etc.

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