6 ms·

AFAIK, the enterprise edition (EE) used to be open source but is now closed [1]. There is an open source "community edition" which has many of the features of

by abetusk 10y ago

AFAIK, the enterprise edition (EE) used to be open source but is now closed [1]. There is an open source "community edition" which has many of the features of the enterprise edition, including self hosting, but lacks others [2]. While I find it unfortunate that GitLab doesn't have it's enterprise edition open sourced, I think they have enough goodwill in the community so that I'm not that angry about it. I would really be interested in hearing from the GitLab folk whether they think making their enterprise edition open source would really hurt their income and if they have any plans on eventually releasing their enterprise edition as open source (again). TLDR; GitLab has an open core business model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab#History [2] https://about.gitlab.com/features/ https://about.gitlab.com/features/

vdfs 10y ago
I thought the EE was open source: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee
- abetusk 10y ago
  From the LICENSE file [1] to your link: ... This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be used if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to, and are in compliance with, the GitLab Subscription Terms of Service, available at https://about.gitlab.com/terms/#subscription (the “EE Terms”), and otherwise have a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats. ... [1] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE
- detaro 10y ago
  you can look at the source, but it is not "open source": https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE
  - Siecje 10y ago
    Isn't that open source though? Sure you have to pay, but you get access to the source and you can modify it and use your modified version as long as you pay. Isn't this the vision that Stallman had about open source or free software and copy left?
    - qznc 10y ago
      I would consider this Open Source, but not Free Software. Free Software according to Stallman's vision includes the right to distribute your modifications. You are not allowed to do that with GitLab EE.
    - zanny 10y ago
      There is a canonical definition of open source by the OSI[1] This is generally called source available or public source, like the Unreal Engine, rather than open source, which implies you can actually do something with that source code. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
  - mdw 10y ago
    You could modify it if you wanted, but the best way is to submit a Merge Request on GitLab.com, otherwise you will need to maintain a fork of GitLab (which might be a trouble to maintain depending on the changes).
    - mordocai 10y ago
      You can only modify it legally if you have an active license though, assuming I'm reading the software license correctly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zanny 10y ago
If Gitlab EE was open source, they would have seen broad adoption in a lot of free software communities because the quality is much higher than the existing infrastructure (think Gnome, KDE, Freedesktop.org, Apache, maybe even smaller projects like Document Foundation and VideoLAN). However, they made crucial functionality all these projects depend on, like LDAP support, proprietary. So we are still in this situation where most open source ecosystems are running horrible old or outdated infrastructure with random bug trackers and mediawiki on the side, or much less intuitive systems for multi-project ecosystems like Phabricator (which is what KDE is switching to). I wouldn't call that goodwill. Some people might be able to personally use the community edition, but no open source project of scale could fathom it with how much groupware functionality is locked behind the proprietary version.
- FooBarWidget 10y ago
  But suppose they do open source EE. How do they make money then? They can't pay employees with "thanks" from the community. Donations don't cut it. Consultancy doesn't scale; see the other discussion thread. GitLab would go under or would have to be forced to scale back development significantly. I don't think anybody really benefits from that long-term. Large free software communities have a choice of course. They can use an alternative (but which one? they are all inferior to GitLab as far as I can see), or they can fork GitLab CE and add the features they need themselves. But let's not kid ourselves that open sourcing GitLab EE is good for the community in the long term.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    They could still sell EE even if it's open source. * Put up a few apt/yum repositories with the EE omnibus packages and charge for access and support. * Offer private off-prem SaSS. * Offer on-prem managed hosting for a premium. * For a hefty premium let companies sponsor features. (i.e Company A needs feature X so they pay you to add it to EE). The literal software isn't the thing you sell, you sell the ease of use and maintenance.
    - zanny 10y ago
sytse 10y ago
Thanks, I agree with the TLDR. Note that our Enterprise Edition has always been closed source. Making the Enterprise Edition open source would really hurt our income and we have no plans to do so. Our idea is that we want to provide great packaging for the open source edition so that people don't need support. So the only thing we can charge for is features.

by abetusk 10y ago

vdfs 10y ago

I thought the EE was open source: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee

abetusk 10y ago
From the LICENSE file [1] to your link: ... This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be used if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to, and are in compliance with, the GitLab Subscription Terms of Service, available at https://about.gitlab.com/terms/#subscription (the “EE Terms”), and otherwise have a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats. ... [1] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE
detaro 10y ago
you can look at the source, but it is not "open source": https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE
- Siecje 10y ago
  Isn't that open source though? Sure you have to pay, but you get access to the source and you can modify it and use your modified version as long as you pay. Isn't this the vision that Stallman had about open source or free software and copy left?
  - qznc 10y ago
    I would consider this Open Source, but not Free Software. Free Software according to Stallman's vision includes the right to distribute your modifications. You are not allowed to do that with GitLab EE.
  - zanny 10y ago
    There is a canonical definition of open source by the OSI[1] This is generally called source available or public source, like the Unreal Engine, rather than open source, which implies you can actually do something with that source code. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
- mdw 10y ago
  You could modify it if you wanted, but the best way is to submit a Merge Request on GitLab.com, otherwise you will need to maintain a fork of GitLab (which might be a trouble to maintain depending on the changes).
  - mordocai 10y ago
    You can only modify it legally if you have an active license though, assuming I'm reading the software license correctly.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

zanny 10y ago

If Gitlab EE was open source, they would have seen broad adoption in a lot of free software communities because the quality is much higher than the existing infrastructure (think Gnome, KDE, Freedesktop.org, Apache, maybe even smaller projects like Document Foundation and VideoLAN). However, they made crucial functionality all these projects depend on, like LDAP support, proprietary. So we are still in this situation where most open source ecosystems are running horrible old or outdated infrastructure with random bug trackers and mediawiki on the side, or much less intuitive systems for multi-project ecosystems like Phabricator (which is what KDE is switching to). I wouldn't call that goodwill. Some people might be able to personally use the community edition, but no open source project of scale could fathom it with how much groupware functionality is locked behind the proprietary version.

FooBarWidget 10y ago
But suppose they do open source EE. How do they make money then? They can't pay employees with "thanks" from the community. Donations don't cut it. Consultancy doesn't scale; see the other discussion thread. GitLab would go under or would have to be forced to scale back development significantly. I don't think anybody really benefits from that long-term. Large free software communities have a choice of course. They can use an alternative (but which one? they are all inferior to GitLab as far as I can see), or they can fork GitLab CE and add the features they need themselves. But let's not kid ourselves that open sourcing GitLab EE is good for the community in the long term.
- Spivak 10y ago
  They could still sell EE even if it's open source. * Put up a few apt/yum repositories with the EE omnibus packages and charge for access and support. * Offer private off-prem SaSS. * Offer on-prem managed hosting for a premium. * For a hefty premium let companies sponsor features. (i.e Company A needs feature X so they pay you to add it to EE). The literal software isn't the thing you sell, you sell the ease of use and maintenance.
  - zanny 10y ago

sytse 10y ago

Thanks, I agree with the TLDR. Note that our Enterprise Edition has always been closed source. Making the Enterprise Edition open source would really hurt our income and we have no plans to do so. Our idea is that we want to provide great packaging for the open source edition so that people don't need support. So the only thing we can charge for is features.