8 ms·

This article uses a bit of openwashing to make "publicly viewable source code" seem "open". It's not. It's proprietary.

jobvandervoort 11y ago
It is, we don't intent to be vague about this. I hadn't heard of the term openwashing, but I understand the criticism. See also our license for our proprietary GitLab Enterprise Edition: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE And the license for our open source GitLab Community Edition (MIT Expat): https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE
- TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
  > It is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software.
- merb 11y ago
  Isn't the copy a little bit vague? I mean if I want to help I need to copy it?
  - sytse 11y ago
    If you want to contribute to EE I think you need a subscription. Otherwise you shouldn't run it.
- nightcracker 11y ago
  Well, you are. Let me read to you the definition of Open Source: > Open source software is software that can be freely used, changed, and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone.
  - nanny 11y ago
    That's not the definition of "open source", that's the definition of "free software". As you can see by this very article, "open" and "free" are not the same. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      They are: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd The only difference is their argument. Free software uses ethical arguments, open source denies ethics altogether and uses consequentialist arguments related to business value and technical superiority (which are becoming increasingly criticized).
      - nanny 11y ago
        I disagree. Would it be accurate to call The GitLab Enterprise Edition "open source"? If not, what would you call it?
        davexunit 11y ago
        It's not open source because "open source" is a term with an established definition by the OSI that GitLab Enterprise does not meet.
        noinsight 11y ago
        > what would you call it? I've heard the term "shared source" which is pretty self explanatory - you can view the source but it's not open/free.
        sytse 11y ago
        We call it proprietary to prevent any confusion.
      - mikegerwitz 11y ago
        https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html
- nadams 11y ago
  > You are free to modify this Software and publish patches. > It is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software. You might want to get a lawyer on the phone - because that seems contradicting to me. This is why you should stick with open source licenses that have been vetted by a team of lawyers already. You should check out the AGPL license.
  - KingMob 11y ago
    He linked to the enterprise license, not the community license. The CE license is open source, the EE is not.
  - jobvandervoort 11y ago
    As KingMob pointed out, I linked to our proprietary license of GitLab Enterprise Edition. GitLab Community Edition is licensed under the MIT Expat license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE
    - nadams 11y ago
      It doesn't matter which product it was for - it still seems contradictory. It says I can distribute patches but then it says I can't. I wasn't joking when telling you that you should get a lawyer on the phone. I've seen a number of people try to write their own software license - and fail miserably. It really has me kind of worried that your response wasn't "we did consult with a lawyer when creating that license".
      - antsar 11y ago
        In what way does it seem contradictory? It seems to allow one to write and publish patches, while disallowing the redistribution/resale of the original code.
        nadams 11y ago
        Distributing a patch would require distributing parts of the original code (the patch file will include lines of original and changed code) - which the latter is not allowed per the license. I'm not saying that gitlab would go after you for just distributing a patch - but if anyone gobbled up gitlab coughOraclecough I'm sure they would summon a swarm of lawyers at your doorstep.
sytse 11y ago
The article is about the issues that will almost all be open. The complete quote you refer to is is "In fact, even our proprietary version of GitLab, GitLab Enterprise Edition, has a publicly viewable source code.". Can we be any more clear it is proprietary? We think it is notable that even the source code and issues of out proprietary edition are publicly viewable.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Your wording is fine. Parent is being far too cynical.
  - sytse 11y ago
    Thanks, I don't want to be seen as openwashing. Open core is a tricky thing and we want to find a good balance.
KingMob 11y ago
Perhaps it's just me, but when they said the enterprise edition was "publicly viewable source code", I assumed they just meant it was "publicly viewable", with no further rights implied. I don't think they're really openwashing here, and the article was pretty clear to me. Besides, the community edition and CI code are both true open source.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Isn't there a slight problem with having the EE code publicly viewable? What I mean by this is, what's stopping someone from taking code from the EE, modifying it, and including it in the CE? On the flip side, what if a feature released to CE is too similar to code in EE, even if the author of the patch never read the EE code for inspiration? Would GitLab be within their rights to stop it? With these issues in mind, it makes more sense to me to have the EE code available by request only.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    > what's stopping someone from taking code from the EE, modifying it, and including it in the CE? 1. Copyright law. 2. For corporations it's probably more cost effective to pay a subscription than maintain a fork.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      1. It's not necessarily easy to prove that the new code has its origin in the existing code. 2. For some corporations, yes, for potential competitors, no. Furthermore, I wasn't talking about a fork, I was talking about committing to CE.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        For those marking me down, say why you disagree. At the moment I'm under the impression I hit a raw nerve, I don't think I'm in the wrong.

It is, we don't intent to be vague about this. I hadn't heard of the term openwashing, but I understand the criticism. See also our license for our proprietary GitLab Enterprise Edition: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE And the license for our open source GitLab Community Edition (MIT Expat): https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE

TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
> It is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software.
merb 11y ago
Isn't the copy a little bit vague? I mean if I want to help I need to copy it?
- sytse 11y ago
  If you want to contribute to EE I think you need a subscription. Otherwise you shouldn't run it.
nightcracker 11y ago
Well, you are. Let me read to you the definition of Open Source: > Open source software is software that can be freely used, changed, and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone.
- nanny 11y ago
  That's not the definition of "open source", that's the definition of "free software". As you can see by this very article, "open" and "free" are not the same. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    They are: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd The only difference is their argument. Free software uses ethical arguments, open source denies ethics altogether and uses consequentialist arguments related to business value and technical superiority (which are becoming increasingly criticized).
    - nanny 11y ago
      I disagree. Would it be accurate to call The GitLab Enterprise Edition "open source"? If not, what would you call it?
      - davexunit 11y ago
        It's not open source because "open source" is a term with an established definition by the OSI that GitLab Enterprise does not meet.
      - noinsight 11y ago
        > what would you call it? I've heard the term "shared source" which is pretty self explanatory - you can view the source but it's not open/free.
      - sytse 11y ago
        We call it proprietary to prevent any confusion.
    - mikegerwitz 11y ago
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html
nadams 11y ago
> You are free to modify this Software and publish patches. > It is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software. You might want to get a lawyer on the phone - because that seems contradicting to me. This is why you should stick with open source licenses that have been vetted by a team of lawyers already. You should check out the AGPL license.
- KingMob 11y ago
  He linked to the enterprise license, not the community license. The CE license is open source, the EE is not.
- jobvandervoort 11y ago
  As KingMob pointed out, I linked to our proprietary license of GitLab Enterprise Edition. GitLab Community Edition is licensed under the MIT Expat license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE
  - nadams 11y ago
    It doesn't matter which product it was for - it still seems contradictory. It says I can distribute patches but then it says I can't. I wasn't joking when telling you that you should get a lawyer on the phone. I've seen a number of people try to write their own software license - and fail miserably. It really has me kind of worried that your response wasn't "we did consult with a lawyer when creating that license".
    - antsar 11y ago
      In what way does it seem contradictory? It seems to allow one to write and publish patches, while disallowing the redistribution/resale of the original code.
      - nadams 11y ago
        Distributing a patch would require distributing parts of the original code (the patch file will include lines of original and changed code) - which the latter is not allowed per the license. I'm not saying that gitlab would go after you for just distributing a patch - but if anyone gobbled up gitlab coughOraclecough I'm sure they would summon a swarm of lawyers at your doorstep.

sytse 11y ago

The article is about the issues that will almost all be open. The complete quote you refer to is is "In fact, even our proprietary version of GitLab, GitLab Enterprise Edition, has a publicly viewable source code.". Can we be any more clear it is proprietary? We think it is notable that even the source code and issues of out proprietary edition are publicly viewable.

scrollaway 11y ago
Your wording is fine. Parent is being far too cynical.
- sytse 11y ago
  Thanks, I don't want to be seen as openwashing. Open core is a tricky thing and we want to find a good balance.

KingMob 11y ago

Perhaps it's just me, but when they said the enterprise edition was "publicly viewable source code", I assumed they just meant it was "publicly viewable", with no further rights implied. I don't think they're really openwashing here, and the article was pretty clear to me. Besides, the community edition and CI code are both true open source.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Isn't there a slight problem with having the EE code publicly viewable? What I mean by this is, what's stopping someone from taking code from the EE, modifying it, and including it in the CE? On the flip side, what if a feature released to CE is too similar to code in EE, even if the author of the patch never read the EE code for inspiration? Would GitLab be within their rights to stop it? With these issues in mind, it makes more sense to me to have the EE code available by request only.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  > what's stopping someone from taking code from the EE, modifying it, and including it in the CE? 1. Copyright law. 2. For corporations it's probably more cost effective to pay a subscription than maintain a fork.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    1. It's not necessarily easy to prove that the new code has its origin in the existing code. 2. For some corporations, yes, for potential competitors, no. Furthermore, I wasn't talking about a fork, I was talking about committing to CE.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      For those marking me down, say why you disagree. At the moment I'm under the impression I hit a raw nerve, I don't think I'm in the wrong.