4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIsn'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 ago1. 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 agoFor 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.