4 ms·

I'd say that it's a pretty easy choice. Pick the open source one.

by d33 11y ago

Spivak 11y ago
Only Gitlab CE is OSS, GitLab EE is "publicly viewable" but neither FOSS/OSS [1]. It's really a shame because I would pay good money to have GitLab EE under a FOSS license. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/license-faq/ https://about.gitlab.com/license-faq/
- connorshea 11y ago
  Out of curiousity, would you consider GPL Affero sufficiently FOSS?
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > Out of curiousity, would you consider GPL Affero sufficiently FOSS? Of course it's a free software license (although I have my doubts about the enforceability of the Affero sections in the AGPL). GitLab EE is proprietary (even though you can read the source).
  - Spivak 11y ago
    As long as we're talking about the GNU AGPL then absolutely! I would say that the original AGPL is sufficiently FOSS but it's GNU GPL incompatible which might be annoying. It's not necessarily a deal breaker though if it's handled well.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      > As long as we're talking about the GNU AGPL then absolutely! I would say that the original AGPL is sufficiently FOSS but it's GNU GPL incompatible which might be annoying. It's not necessarily a deal breaker though if it's handled well. It's GPLv2 incompatible. GPLv3 has a special exception for the AGPL.
- sytse 11y ago
  We initially had GitLab EE under the MIT expat license. But this proved to be a problem for potential customers, their purchasing department didn't understand. We also like that now we can store the EE source in a public repository that accepts merge requests.
catwell 11y ago
I am usually in the Open Source camp, but I don't think the choice is so easy here. Not only does GitLab copy GitHub, it does so by relying on a lot of Open Source sofware written by GitHub and/or GitHub employees. You may like GitHub or not, but you cannot deny they contribute a lot to Open Source. I am not entirely sure how much that has changed since his resignation, but here is Tom Preston-Werner's position on Open Source: http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everyth...
- jeffwass 11y ago
  >Not only does GitLab copy GitHub, it does so by relying on a lot of Open Source sofware written by GitHub and/or GitHub employees. That seems like a bizarre complaint, considering git itself is FOSS, initially written by Linus, and that GitHub's entire business is effectively built around hosting git repositories.
  - hk__2 11y ago
    GitHub contributes back a lot to git itself.

I'd say that it's a pretty easy choice. Pick the open source one.

by d33 11y ago

I'd say that it's a pretty easy choice. Pick the open source one.

Only Gitlab CE is OSS, GitLab EE is "publicly viewable" but neither FOSS/OSS [1]. It's really a shame because I would pay good money to have GitLab EE under a FOSS license. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/license-faq/ https://about.gitlab.com/license-faq/

connorshea 11y ago
Out of curiousity, would you consider GPL Affero sufficiently FOSS?
- cyphar 11y ago
  > Out of curiousity, would you consider GPL Affero sufficiently FOSS? Of course it's a free software license (although I have my doubts about the enforceability of the Affero sections in the AGPL). GitLab EE is proprietary (even though you can read the source).
- Spivak 11y ago
  As long as we're talking about the GNU AGPL then absolutely! I would say that the original AGPL is sufficiently FOSS but it's GNU GPL incompatible which might be annoying. It's not necessarily a deal breaker though if it's handled well.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > As long as we're talking about the GNU AGPL then absolutely! I would say that the original AGPL is sufficiently FOSS but it's GNU GPL incompatible which might be annoying. It's not necessarily a deal breaker though if it's handled well. It's GPLv2 incompatible. GPLv3 has a special exception for the AGPL.
sytse 11y ago
We initially had GitLab EE under the MIT expat license. But this proved to be a problem for potential customers, their purchasing department didn't understand. We also like that now we can store the EE source in a public repository that accepts merge requests.

catwell 11y ago

I am usually in the Open Source camp, but I don't think the choice is so easy here. Not only does GitLab copy GitHub, it does so by relying on a lot of Open Source sofware written by GitHub and/or GitHub employees. You may like GitHub or not, but you cannot deny they contribute a lot to Open Source. I am not entirely sure how much that has changed since his resignation, but here is Tom Preston-Werner's position on Open Source: http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everyth...

jeffwass 11y ago
>Not only does GitLab copy GitHub, it does so by relying on a lot of Open Source sofware written by GitHub and/or GitHub employees. That seems like a bizarre complaint, considering git itself is FOSS, initially written by Linus, and that GitHub's entire business is effectively built around hosting git repositories.
- hk__2 11y ago
  GitHub contributes back a lot to git itself.