4 ms·

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

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
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Yes. Because of the ethical standpoint, free software inherently opposes DRM, Tivoization, "trusted computing" and software patents, whereas open source in general has no intrinsic view on them.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  It truly is distressing how programmers whose livelihood depends on free software (or "open source", if you prefer) are often so ignorant about it.
- KingMob 11y ago
  But that's the enterprise license, not the community license. When they say "In fact, even our proprietary version of GitLab, GitLab Enterprise Edition, has a publicly viewable source code", I don't think they're implying it's open source.
  - sytse 11y ago
    Indeed, GitLab EE is proprietary, GitLab CE is open source (MIT Expat)
- odonnellryan 11y ago
  Their community edition is open source, no?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Great, the age-old debate on what is and isn't open source vs free software. We really needed that in here. Y'all need to stop whining about the irrelevant when companies like these are doing literally everything else right. It's pretty damn ungrateful.
  - mikegerwitz 11y ago
    It's far from irrelevant. Free software advocates are clear: proprietary software is unacceptable, in any form, for any reason. It has nothing to do with being ungrateful. We express our appreciation when software is liberated, or when developers/companies are working toward it. But it does not change the fundamental philosophy.
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      Except of course CE is free software, and this all stems from GP misinterpreting a very-well-worded source available note.
  - voidz 11y ago
    Irrelevant to you perhaps. But please don't tell people to shut up. What you say can also be regarded as whining btw - you mean good, I think, but this just won't help one bit. Better to participate constructively than to express this type of annoyance.
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      > Better to participate constructively than to express this type of annoyance. I'm sorry but to hell with your patronizing attitude. I participated extremely constructively in this very thread, I work full-time on FOSS and I work on FOSS in my off time, in three different major projects. What do you do to "help the cause"? Because I'll tell you something, whining that Gitlab, of all things, isn't free software enough is the OPPOSITE of constructive. Oh my god, you're not entitled to the work of others. Also, to whoever is downvoting this, what the hell makes you think you're entitled to the free work of others? And again, I say that as a full time FOSS developer. This fanaticism needs to stop.
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.

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
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Yes. Because of the ethical standpoint, free software inherently opposes DRM, Tivoization, "trusted computing" and software patents, whereas open source in general has no intrinsic view on them.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
It truly is distressing how programmers whose livelihood depends on free software (or "open source", if you prefer) are often so ignorant about it.
KingMob 11y ago
But that's the enterprise license, not the community license. When they say "In fact, even our proprietary version of GitLab, GitLab Enterprise Edition, has a publicly viewable source code", I don't think they're implying it's open source.
- sytse 11y ago
  Indeed, GitLab EE is proprietary, GitLab CE is open source (MIT Expat)
odonnellryan 11y ago
Their community edition is open source, no?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
scrollaway 11y ago
Great, the age-old debate on what is and isn't open source vs free software. We really needed that in here. Y'all need to stop whining about the irrelevant when companies like these are doing literally everything else right. It's pretty damn ungrateful.
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  It's far from irrelevant. Free software advocates are clear: proprietary software is unacceptable, in any form, for any reason. It has nothing to do with being ungrateful. We express our appreciation when software is liberated, or when developers/companies are working toward it. But it does not change the fundamental philosophy.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    Except of course CE is free software, and this all stems from GP misinterpreting a very-well-worded source available note.
- voidz 11y ago
  Irrelevant to you perhaps. But please don't tell people to shut up. What you say can also be regarded as whining btw - you mean good, I think, but this just won't help one bit. Better to participate constructively than to express this type of annoyance.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    > Better to participate constructively than to express this type of annoyance. I'm sorry but to hell with your patronizing attitude. I participated extremely constructively in this very thread, I work full-time on FOSS and I work on FOSS in my off time, in three different major projects. What do you do to "help the cause"? Because I'll tell you something, whining that Gitlab, of all things, isn't free software enough is the OPPOSITE of constructive. Oh my god, you're not entitled to the work of others. Also, to whoever is downvoting this, what the hell makes you think you're entitled to the free work of others? And again, I say that as a full time FOSS developer. This fanaticism needs to stop.

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.