5 ms·

Here's the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Gitlab EE, which is how Gitlab makes its money, c

Here's the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Gitlab EE, which is how Gitlab makes its money, comes nowhere close to meeting that. It's pretty much straight up corporate dishonesty to pretend to be an open source company when you're following a proprietary software model to make money. You're no more an "Open Source Company" than Apple or Microsoft, who also have some open source projects separate from their main revenue streams.

skj 10y ago
I'll point out that merely being the first to claim "opensource.org" does not allow one to define what the word means for the community at large.
- danieldk 10y ago
  Four your (historical) interest, the OSI people (opensource.org) invented the term 'open source': https://web.archive.org/web/20060924132022/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20060924132022/http://www.openso... 'Free software' was considered to be too scary for businesses and the rest is history. So, in other words, yes they have a say in this. The made the label with the associated definition.
  - bisby 10y ago
    Creating a phrase does not mean you get to define how the community uses it. The guy who invented gif doesn't really seem to get much say in it's pronunciation. In America, almost all people call tissues "Kleenex" regardless of brand. In the UK, I hear all vacuums are called "Hoovers" regardless. People can use a specific brand "Open source" to mean generically all software with source code available. Languages evolve and while opensource.org may have originated the term, common use dictates that the definition of "open source" isn't as strict as the original definition.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - skj 10y ago
      Right. In the same way that Alan Kay's definition of "Object Oriented" doesn't match that of the programmer community at large.
    - danieldk 10y ago
      Creating a phrase does not mean you get to define how the community uses it. I don't disagree, but it's also up to the tech community to keep terms clean/accurate. Even if you don't follow the OSI definition, I think 'open source' clearly points to a set of licenses for most in the developer community. When the term became popular, lot of companies tried to piggyback on the success of the name, trying to dilute it.
      - bisby 10y ago
        Id agree with that. Sometimes people use it in ways even they don't agree with, but would agree that it's more accurate than just straight "closed source". Is source available "more open" than something completely closed? The latest Unreal for instance. It's not closed source, because you can in fact see the source, and it wouldnt be fair to compare it to other engines/games that are just a pure black box. But yet, the licensing is restrictive. So its not truly "open source" but Ive heard some people call it open source meaning "not closed" when in reality it is somewhere in between - "source available". In those cases, the definition is not really as important as people seem to make it out to be. I'm speaking casually and colloquially here. And I would say that Gitlab CE is open source. And consequently, Gitlab EE is MOSTLY open source. From my understanding, its essentially gitlab CE with some closed source plugins. I dont really care where they make their money. I interact with Gitlab CE primarily, and it is the core product. Calling them an open source company is not like calling Microsoft an open source company "because microsoft has some random open source products". My entire point being that getting bent out of shape over minor semantics is weird. Not 100% of gitlab is open source, and they make most of their money off that closed source bit, but I would venture to say that most of their users (by volume, not by revenue) deal with the open source part only.
- FooBarWidget 10y ago
  I'm not expressing any opinion on the question of whether GitLab is or is not an open source company, but: Opensource.org isn't just some random website by a random dude. It was setup by (among others) the very same guy that invented the phrase "open source". It should rightfully be considered the canonical definition of open source. In my experience there is also a group of people that simply don't care about exact definitions or legal implications. They have this overly simplistic view that having access to the source code is all there is to it to be "open source". That's probably the group of people you refer to when you say "the community at large". I have no idea how big group is, or whether it is big at all. But I do think they are wrong.
  - asimuvPR 10y ago
    In my experience there is also a group of people that simply don't care about exact definitions or legal implications. They have this overly simplistic view that having access to the source code is all there is to it to be "open source". That's probably the group of people you refer to when you say "the community at large". I have no idea how big group is, or whether it is big at all. But I do think they are wrong. I've noticed that some (not all) of the people in this group use the term "open source" for marketing purposes. Sadly, it is a term that attracts uninformed eyeballs.
unethical_ban 10y ago
That is absurd. If Gitlab and Microsoft were equivalent, Windows 10 Home would be completely open-source under GPL. Advanced features like connecting to the domain, full disk encryption, and Hyper-V hosting would be "Enterprise". Conversely, for Gitlab to be as closed as Microsoft, their entire product would be closed, except for the source code they use to color labels in issues, or perhaps they'd hand out the spec to their flavor of Markdown.
- dimtion 10y ago
  Isn't Gitlab EE open source ? In wich case, what is this repo : https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ ?
  - asimuvPR 10y ago
    It is not. Please read the first sentence of the license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE#L4 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE#... Here is how open source is officially defined: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Edit: I did not downvote you. Your point is valid because it reflects a common view in the community. Asking questions should not be punished. Please consider this before downvoting the comment above.
    - cercatrova 10y ago
      What's stopping someone from simply cloning that directory and putting it on their servers like with the Gitlab community version? How do they enforce the subscription access?
      - foxylion 10y ago
        It's simply illegal to do that. A private person may do something like that (even it's illegal), but I can't think of a serious company which uses priated software.
  - 10y ago
sytse 10y ago
GitLab Enterprise Edition (EE) is closed source and we try to be clear about having an open core business model. I amended the blog post to reflect it too https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/e333cc93b17df60ce8f7948896ddf3b714d8ec1d https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/e333cc93... When I think about our company I do think of it as an open source company. 80% of the work and features are shipped in GitLab Community Edition and the majority of our users are using the open source edition. If I google 'open source companies' the first hit is http://thevarguy.com/open-source-application-software-companies/top-50-open-source-companies-where-are-they-now http://thevarguy.com/open-source-application-software-compan... I think a number of these have an open core business model. The first ten blue links also point to http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-microsoft-is-turning-into-an-open-source-company/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-microsoft-is-turning-into-a... I don't think about Microsoft as being open source, but I think you can be a open source company and still ship propietary code. If you want to know more about how try to balance the open source code with the need for a business model and our promises please see https://about.gitlab.com/about/#stewardship https://about.gitlab.com/about/#stewardship
- asimuvPR 10y ago
  I feel that the company follows an open source belief rather than a model. When you say this: When I think about our company I do think of it as an open source company. It confirms that some of us might share the same feeling.
  - sytse 10y ago
    I do believe that open source is more than a license. It is a way of working. That is why all our issue trackers are public, including the GitLab EE one with customer requests https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues and for example our marketing team https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/issues https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/issues We also try to open up as much as we can, including our company handbook https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/ https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/
    - 10y ago
vonnik 10y ago
All open-source companies close-source some code, or else they struggle, because services don't scale. Red Hat's security layer is not open-source. Cloudera is an explicitly open-core company. So is my startup, Skymind.[1][2] There's no other way to do it. But there is a way to be honest about it, and I think sytse is being honest. You can't give it all away for free. If you do, you're probably not a company... [1] https://skymind.io/ https://skymind.io/ [2] http://deeplearning4j.org/ http://deeplearning4j.org/
- rushabh 10y ago
  SAAS is a viable revenue model, but it takes a long time to scale. If you are looking at "lifestyle" business, you can still do open source and make make money too. Thats what we do at ERPNext
  - vonnik 10y ago
    I agree with you. When I say services, I'm actually talking about the consulting work that accompanies enterprise software sales, where you end up acting as an outsourced engineering team for your clients.
dang 10y ago
Ok, we s/source/core/'d the title above since that use of "open source" is disputed. But I wish you had omitted this: > It's pretty much straight up corporate dishonesty That's uncharitable and on the wrong side of the HN guideline against name-calling. Please err on the other side instead. In addition to making the community more civil, it will make your arguments stronger; as for example your last sentence was the stronger argument here. A more charitable comment would also not have spoken of "the" definition of open-source, a notoriously protean term.
mrmondo 10y ago
I'm sorry but that is an utterly ridiculous comparison.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

skj 10y ago

I'll point out that merely being the first to claim "opensource.org" does not allow one to define what the word means for the community at large.

danieldk 10y ago
Four your (historical) interest, the OSI people (opensource.org) invented the term 'open source': https://web.archive.org/web/20060924132022/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20060924132022/http://www.openso... 'Free software' was considered to be too scary for businesses and the rest is history. So, in other words, yes they have a say in this. The made the label with the associated definition.
- bisby 10y ago
  Creating a phrase does not mean you get to define how the community uses it. The guy who invented gif doesn't really seem to get much say in it's pronunciation. In America, almost all people call tissues "Kleenex" regardless of brand. In the UK, I hear all vacuums are called "Hoovers" regardless. People can use a specific brand "Open source" to mean generically all software with source code available. Languages evolve and while opensource.org may have originated the term, common use dictates that the definition of "open source" isn't as strict as the original definition.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - skj 10y ago
    Right. In the same way that Alan Kay's definition of "Object Oriented" doesn't match that of the programmer community at large.
  - danieldk 10y ago
    Creating a phrase does not mean you get to define how the community uses it. I don't disagree, but it's also up to the tech community to keep terms clean/accurate. Even if you don't follow the OSI definition, I think 'open source' clearly points to a set of licenses for most in the developer community. When the term became popular, lot of companies tried to piggyback on the success of the name, trying to dilute it.
    - bisby 10y ago
      Id agree with that. Sometimes people use it in ways even they don't agree with, but would agree that it's more accurate than just straight "closed source". Is source available "more open" than something completely closed? The latest Unreal for instance. It's not closed source, because you can in fact see the source, and it wouldnt be fair to compare it to other engines/games that are just a pure black box. But yet, the licensing is restrictive. So its not truly "open source" but Ive heard some people call it open source meaning "not closed" when in reality it is somewhere in between - "source available". In those cases, the definition is not really as important as people seem to make it out to be. I'm speaking casually and colloquially here. And I would say that Gitlab CE is open source. And consequently, Gitlab EE is MOSTLY open source. From my understanding, its essentially gitlab CE with some closed source plugins. I dont really care where they make their money. I interact with Gitlab CE primarily, and it is the core product. Calling them an open source company is not like calling Microsoft an open source company "because microsoft has some random open source products". My entire point being that getting bent out of shape over minor semantics is weird. Not 100% of gitlab is open source, and they make most of their money off that closed source bit, but I would venture to say that most of their users (by volume, not by revenue) deal with the open source part only.
FooBarWidget 10y ago
I'm not expressing any opinion on the question of whether GitLab is or is not an open source company, but: Opensource.org isn't just some random website by a random dude. It was setup by (among others) the very same guy that invented the phrase "open source". It should rightfully be considered the canonical definition of open source. In my experience there is also a group of people that simply don't care about exact definitions or legal implications. They have this overly simplistic view that having access to the source code is all there is to it to be "open source". That's probably the group of people you refer to when you say "the community at large". I have no idea how big group is, or whether it is big at all. But I do think they are wrong.
- asimuvPR 10y ago
  In my experience there is also a group of people that simply don't care about exact definitions or legal implications. They have this overly simplistic view that having access to the source code is all there is to it to be "open source". That's probably the group of people you refer to when you say "the community at large". I have no idea how big group is, or whether it is big at all. But I do think they are wrong. I've noticed that some (not all) of the people in this group use the term "open source" for marketing purposes. Sadly, it is a term that attracts uninformed eyeballs.

unethical_ban 10y ago

That is absurd. If Gitlab and Microsoft were equivalent, Windows 10 Home would be completely open-source under GPL. Advanced features like connecting to the domain, full disk encryption, and Hyper-V hosting would be "Enterprise". Conversely, for Gitlab to be as closed as Microsoft, their entire product would be closed, except for the source code they use to color labels in issues, or perhaps they'd hand out the spec to their flavor of Markdown.

dimtion 10y ago
Isn't Gitlab EE open source ? In wich case, what is this repo : https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ ?
- asimuvPR 10y ago
  It is not. Please read the first sentence of the license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE#L4 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE#... Here is how open source is officially defined: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Edit: I did not downvote you. Your point is valid because it reflects a common view in the community. Asking questions should not be punished. Please consider this before downvoting the comment above.
  - cercatrova 10y ago
    What's stopping someone from simply cloning that directory and putting it on their servers like with the Gitlab community version? How do they enforce the subscription access?
    - foxylion 10y ago
      It's simply illegal to do that. A private person may do something like that (even it's illegal), but I can't think of a serious company which uses priated software.
- 10y ago

sytse 10y ago

GitLab Enterprise Edition (EE) is closed source and we try to be clear about having an open core business model. I amended the blog post to reflect it too https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/e333cc93b17df60ce8f7948896ddf3b714d8ec1d https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/e333cc93... When I think about our company I do think of it as an open source company. 80% of the work and features are shipped in GitLab Community Edition and the majority of our users are using the open source edition. If I google 'open source companies' the first hit is http://thevarguy.com/open-source-application-software-companies/top-50-open-source-companies-where-are-they-now http://thevarguy.com/open-source-application-software-compan... I think a number of these have an open core business model. The first ten blue links also point to http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-microsoft-is-turning-into-an-open-source-company/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-microsoft-is-turning-into-a... I don't think about Microsoft as being open source, but I think you can be a open source company and still ship propietary code. If you want to know more about how try to balance the open source code with the need for a business model and our promises please see https://about.gitlab.com/about/#stewardship https://about.gitlab.com/about/#stewardship

asimuvPR 10y ago
I feel that the company follows an open source belief rather than a model. When you say this: When I think about our company I do think of it as an open source company. It confirms that some of us might share the same feeling.
- sytse 10y ago
  I do believe that open source is more than a license. It is a way of working. That is why all our issue trackers are public, including the GitLab EE one with customer requests https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues and for example our marketing team https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/issues https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/issues We also try to open up as much as we can, including our company handbook https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/ https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/
  - 10y ago

vonnik 10y ago

All open-source companies close-source some code, or else they struggle, because services don't scale. Red Hat's security layer is not open-source. Cloudera is an explicitly open-core company. So is my startup, Skymind.[1][2] There's no other way to do it. But there is a way to be honest about it, and I think sytse is being honest. You can't give it all away for free. If you do, you're probably not a company... [1] https://skymind.io/ https://skymind.io/ [2] http://deeplearning4j.org/ http://deeplearning4j.org/

rushabh 10y ago
SAAS is a viable revenue model, but it takes a long time to scale. If you are looking at "lifestyle" business, you can still do open source and make make money too. Thats what we do at ERPNext
- vonnik 10y ago
  I agree with you. When I say services, I'm actually talking about the consulting work that accompanies enterprise software sales, where you end up acting as an outsourced engineering team for your clients.

dang 10y ago

Ok, we s/source/core/'d the title above since that use of "open source" is disputed. But I wish you had omitted this: > It's pretty much straight up corporate dishonesty That's uncharitable and on the wrong side of the HN guideline against name-calling. Please err on the other side instead. In addition to making the community more civil, it will make your arguments stronger; as for example your last sentence was the stronger argument here. A more charitable comment would also not have spoken of "the" definition of open-source, a notoriously protean term.

mrmondo 10y ago

I'm sorry but that is an utterly ridiculous comparison.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]