6 ms·

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 o

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.

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.