10 ms·

GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

258 points by thefilmore 8y ago

amingilani 8y ago
There's honestly nothing new here. GitLab calls itself open core because only the Community Edition (CE) is open-source and the Enterprise Edition is source-available. Anyone, after five minutes of looking at GitLab.com, knows this. They aren't hiding it and it's already incredibly public. They've even publicly talk about their 100+ user-relevant rule for features that decides what CE doesn't get [1] I don't understand what compelled the author to write this but GitLab CE really is open-source. Stop the FUD. [1]: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10923838
- ktpsns 8y ago
  Furthermore, Gitlab has a brilliant documentation which makes very clear which features are available in which version of the program. This distinction goes even into the documentation of the (JSON) API. What is advertised as open source is really open source, you can browse it yourself. Find it at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce -- btw, this is a ~3GB repository, afaik you won't be able to host such a large repository at github.com for free. With self-hosted gitlab, you can do this without any hazzle.
  - dalore 8y ago
    Also the issues are all on public and anyone can comment and see what the devs are saying about it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > I don't understand what compelled the author to write this but GitLab CE really is open-source. To counter all the comments throughout today claiming that GitLab is the bastion of Open Source. There's nothing wrong with GitLab or their "open core" business model, but a lot of posters today surrounding the GitHub acquisition have been misstating GitLab's OSS credentials. GitLab did nothing wrong. But facts somethings need to be restated.
  - sullyj3 8y ago
    I agree, and I think this is a valid reason. However, I think the author could have been more explicit about this (assuming that this in fact the author's reason for writing the post, and not a steelman)
ng12 8y ago
> Both versions have their sources published on GitLab with the former having an MIT license and the latter a proprietary one which requires a paid subscription with GitLab. So, it is open source? Doesn't this fall under the adage of "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?"
- devmunchies 8y ago
  the enterprise version is not opened source? big deal. gotta support free software somehow and that is a respectable way.
  - ng12 8y ago
    It is open source though: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ Open source doesn't mean you can't charge for your work.
    - adambrenecki 8y ago
      Open source doesn't just mean that the source is publicly available, either, though. This definitely isn't an open source license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE
      - ng12 8y ago
        Why not? You can modify/redistribute it, you can't just deploy it to production without having a valid subscription. It's not Free Software, but it is Open Source.
        the_af 8y ago
        Free Software and Open Source's differences are more philosophical than technical/legal [0]. This means that if something cannot be Free Software it cannot, more often than not, be Open Source either. If you cannot deploy it without a paid subscription, it's not Open Source by most commonly accepted definitions of the term. ---- [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en....
syshum 8y ago
And how much of GitHub is Open???
- Harvey-Specter 8y ago
  That's not relevant to the discussion of whether or not GitLab is open source.
- pythonaut_16 8y ago
  More than you'd expect, as they've open sourced and contributed to a number of open source projects based on their development of Github.com
  - syshum 8y ago
    Github is a perfect match for MS, both of them are hostile to the idea of Free Software They open source tools for devs, things like Library's, Frameworks, IDE's etc. Never end products. They oppose the ethics of Free Software, Open source for them is a way to get free labor
dpedu 8y ago
Even if every last byte of Gitlab and the bits behind it aren't OSS, it is lightyears ahead of GitHub in terms of source availability. And while I suspect the gap will only grow, I'd love for Microsoft to make me wrong.
- draw_down 8y ago
  Exactly, which is what makes the "Microsoft LOVES open source!!!!" angle of this acquisition so strange. If they love open-source so much why did they acquire the closed-source service?
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.
    - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
      Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.
      - tazjin 8y ago
        The Github repository for the kernel is a mirror of the actual kernel.org repository. The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.
        cma 8y ago
        He's not talking about them using Github as his example, he's talking about them using Bitkeeper in the past.
      - dpedu 8y ago
        I don't think we can compare the state of OSS then to now.
      - 8y ago
amyjess 8y ago
> Furthermore, the free version running on GitLab.com is the Enterprise Edition. This means that if you wish to move from their hosted service to your own one, you would be losing several features and would even have to pay to import your projects based on the above list. Just because GitLab.com runs EE doesn't mean all EE features are made available to all users. Most if not all EE-only features are behind a paywall on GitLab.com; you still have to pay to use them even if you don't self-host.
Kostic 8y ago
I cannot disagree more. The open source core is very featureful for its price, it's easy enough to host on premise and UX is very good. Granted, the paid version has some nice features and there were some problems in the past when people wanted to integrate features found in the paid version to the open core but that's the price of living in current times. Money is still needed to create and maintain something. Maybe one day when we start living in a Star Trek society.
- sytse 8y ago
  Thanks! The article asked "what chunk of GitLab will be considered “core” in the future?". We try to detail this on https://about.gitlab.com/stewardship/#what-features-are-paid-only https://about.gitlab.com/stewardship/#what-features-are-paid... "All stages of the DevOps lifecycle is available in GitLab CE"
  - __manuels__ 8y ago
    You are right, looks like the author did not even try to make any enquiries...
nightfly 8y ago
Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. My organization would benefit from the "Rebase merge requests before merge" and "Use fast-forward merges when possible" features quite a bit, and we are an in educational environment with lots of volunteers so using the Enterprise edition isn't viable at all. These features aren't technically difficult to implement, but even if we wrote open source versions of them we'd have to carry our own internal fork of Gitlab since there is no chance upstream would accept them since they've already decided they don't /want/ those features in the "community" edition.
- dpedu 8y ago
  I'm not familiar; are the features you mentioned new and perhaps not "ready" or ported to Gitlab OSS? But if they're older features in "proprietary" Gitlab then I'd have to agree. Edit: a bit off topic, but why do you want "Rebase merge requests before merge" - wouldn't `s/merge/testing/` be much more useful?
- dpark 8y ago
  > Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. I understand that criticism, but what else would you gate except useful features? The entire point of this style of sales is to enable a "freemium" model with highly valuable features locked behind the pay-gate.
  - tonyarkles 8y ago
    In the parent's defense, the two features listed aren't really what I think of when I think of "enterprise" features. I think more of things like SAML and Active Directory integration, auditing, etc.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Sure, but that's essentially a branding criticism (labeling them "enterprise" features) rather than a criticism of the "open core" model.
vignesh_m 8y ago
Whoa, those are some pretty big features I assumed were "core".Static pages, fast-forward merges, Git hooks - aren't these core reasons to use a git website instead of just git+remote
greenhatman 8y ago
Phabricator is 100% open source. https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/ https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/
colemickens 8y ago
It seems that most of the discussion has been around GitLab and then Gogs/Gitea. I hope folks also give attention to other, possibly less-discussed code collaboration platforms that have arguably more open development than GitLab here. For example, I believe Fedora is developed via Pagure, which also importantly supports "remote" pull requests. (https://pagure.io/pagure https://pagure.io/pagure) (Fedora's instance: https://src.fedoraproject.org/ https://src.fedoraproject.org/) There's also Kallithea, but I haven't looked at it much. (https://kallithea-scm.org/ https://kallithea-scm.org/)
rdtsc 8y ago
> GitLab has two version of its software - GitLab Community Edition, the open-source version, and GitLab Enterprise Edition. I think the context is the comparison with Github. So where is the Github open source community edition with MIT licensing? > The question then is - what chunk of GitLab will be considered “core” in the future? None of the additional enterprise features seem to be core features so it's just one core then? Maybe the author is not a native English speaker so it's not clear what a "core" is.
- tomcatfish 8y ago
  Believe the posters asking how we know that they won't shrink the feature set in the future in comparison to the existing codebase by introducing updates or quality-of-life improvements in the Enterprise version and not in the open version
n4r9 8y ago
I think I understand why this article was written, but earlier today I looked up GitLab on Wikipedia and feel like I came away with a more comprehensive understanding of GitLab's structure along with its history and motivations and with less reading time to boot.
jph 8y ago
GitLab LICENSE file: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE The way I read it, GitLab is open source in three senses: 1) GitLab core is MIT 2) GitLab enterprise edition is all published code 3) The GitLab EE license specifically gives the user permission to modify code and publish patches within the broad EE license.
mankash666 8y ago
GitLab or ANY company has no obligation to give away it's work under liberal OSS terms. GitLab is NOT a charity, the hypocritical expectation of OSS while still expecting silicon-valley style exorbitant compensation for being an employee is clearly at odds, companies can only afford such salaries if they eke out handsome profits. Ergo, if you expect a good salary for your work, prepare to pay for good products. RedHat is the ONLY company managing a reasonable revenue stream while being fully open source. If you like/love GitLab/GitHub, you'll want them to thrive financially, and there's no clearer path to financial stability than charging for close source software, as proven by decades of enterprise and consumer facing companies.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  > RedHat is the ONLY company managing a reasonable revenue stream while being fully open source For their size. There are other open source projects that are actually profitable. They're just not billion dollar companies. e.g. ghost.org
  - mankash666 8y ago
    Ghost is NOT a for-profit company, you can't compare them to companies whose mission is profit. Unless you're implying the pursuit of profit to be unacceptable, this is an apples to oranges comparison
    - ModernMech 8y ago
      > you can't compare them to companies whose mission is profit. Why not? They're a non-profit, sure, but that doesn't make them a charity. Like Redhat, they also don't have an obligation to give anything away for free. They just have an obligation to make sure at the end of the day, there's no money left over in the form of profit. And yet, they manage to not only generate revenue on an open source project, they make enough to keep the company afloat. That's not to say their model would work for gitlab or github. Ghost works because they're small. But the point I'm trying to make is there is a model demonstrated by Ghost and others that allows for small fully open source project to support itself, while not relying on a closed core.
teraflop 8y ago
Flagged as clickbait. "Gitlab Has Both Open-source And Closed-source Versions" would be more accurate, but that's not as attention-grabbing a headline, is it?
cjoy 8y ago
In general I have sympathy for the free core + pay for enterprise features approach. Seems like a fair model. Where it starts to fall apart for me, is when basic quality of life features like a usable code review (do not trigger a notification for every line I comment) are tagged as “enterprise features”.
jordigh 8y ago
"Open core" is just plain ol' proprietary software. Mac OS X is "open core" in the very literal sense that kernel and core are synonyms. It's really no big innovation to be selling secret sauce on top of free software; Android is also "open core" as is Matlab. Nowadays literally almost all proprietary software has bits of weakly-licensed free software in it such as curl or React. I've never been very impressed by GitLab's claims of openness. The only difference seems to be that you can get most of the useful things of GitLab as free software whereas Darwin, Linux, or LAPACK+FFTW are not the most attractive parts of macOS, Android, or Matlab. Call me when you manage to make a business without forcing any kind of EULA whatsoever on your customers. That will be the real innovation.
- pythonaut_16 8y ago
  I strongly disagree. GitLab is open core because I can run and use the software in a meaningful way under open source licenses. MacOs is substantially different because I cannot take their open source kernel and run a functioning version of MacOs
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jordigh 8y ago
    Well, you used to be able to do that with macOS, but I think they stopped that from happening in the last few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#OpenDarwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#Open... Gitlab may one day also decide that their core is too large and too useful to let everyone play with it too. Also, you're not strongly disagreeing with me. I said the same thing, the only difference is that you can get most (but not all) of the useful things from whatever GitLab currently considers its core to be.
    - innerspirit 8y ago
      Google took the same approach with Android, releasing non-OSS versions of their OSS apps, and not updating the OSS ones anymore.
rburhum 8y ago
GitLab open sources most of their core source. They never said they were 100% - and even this concept is crazy. At some point you have to realize that they need to have scalable business model, and this is what they have chosen to do. Good for them, it is working.
akerro 8y ago
Author doesnt understand concepts of opensource, dual-licensing, copy-left and copy-right. Nothing to see here.
ianamartin 8y ago
This kind of sort-of open source needs a word. Openium source or something. You get the basics under open source with all that implies. And if you want the premium features, that's also there in a sort-of open source way.
- zokier 8y ago
  Open core is pretty well-established phrase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core
shazow 8y ago
Like most things, "Open Source" is relative and spans a gradient. It can be open but undocumented, it can be open but with closed components, it can be open but broken, it can be open but closed to outside contributors, and so on. The most important question is whether it's forkable? If X decided to go against its community, how painful would it be to fork X and for the community to continue without the maintainer's support? Is GitLab more open source than GitHub? Absolutely. If I committed substantial resources integrating with "the GitLab way of doing things" and then GitLab pulled the rug on me, would I be able to retain my investment by forking off the product? For most things, yes. I'm all for GitLab becoming even more open source, but they deserve the accolades they've gotten so far.
ramshorns 8y ago
It depends what you care about. Some would say it doesn't matter if the server software is free and open source, so long as you can use the service without running any proprietary software yourself. And GitLab is pretty good in that regard, with the website's JavaScript under a free license. https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
duxup 8y ago
I look forward to the next panic that sends folks fleeing back to sourceforge.
luka-birsa 8y ago
I've been a user of gitlab for 4yrs+. Its a great tool and a nice alternative to github for all us crazy "i want to have code on-prem" folks. That being said gitlab ce and its relationship to ee is more and more complicated. What started out at missing select features is now full out armaggedon of lacking features. See latest releases and youll see that all the cool stuff is comming out only to ee. Whats even worse, the pricing is insane - some nice features are in the extreme tier that costs insane ammounts od money. There was a time when we considered dropping all other tools and moving to gitlab. Now were actually migrating to jira for issue tracking. We're considering jenkins as alternative to gitlab ci. And if we see the rift growing too large, we'll move to phabricator (kindof sad we didnt go that direction 4yrs back).
- brianwawok 8y ago
  We went Gitlab to Bitbucket + Jira. Quite a bit more power, for less money (even after paying for cloud testers).
  - jbergstroem 8y ago
    I think the Atlassian stack "wins" in the ~200-500 users range for enterprise companies but price doubles if you want the "cloud edition" (read: run on more than one vm). I asked for a few quotes of the gitlab EEU (ultimate) edition and found prices competitive.
    - marcinkuzminski 8y ago
      You should check out RhodeCode as well. It integrates with Redmine/Jira/Jenkins/TeamCity etc quite well, and it's suited to work for teams of 100-1000+ with enterprise feature focus
  - brightball 8y ago
    I’ve been wondering why Bitbucket just gets ignored with all the Github news. I get that Gitlab is the new hotness but they’ve been offering free private repos before gitlab was even a thing.
skywhopper 8y ago
I don't really agree with the premise here. Gitlab is getting lots of new users because of the Github/MS deal but if those users cared about how open-source their git host was, they would not have been using Github. And the value that Github and Gitlab.com provide have nothing to do with their source code availability. They both provide a relatively trustworthy community resource on which to share your code without having to run your own public server. Yes, Gitlab has generated goodwill by having an open-source version of their product, and lots of people have tried it out for self-hosted needs. And so they are the natural first place people will flock to. But the main reason people are moving to Gitlab.com is because it provides an easy and open place to host source code that remains (for now) independent from the tech oligopolists.
zantana 8y ago
This rush to Gitlab reminds me of the forecasted mass reddit exodus to voat in during the AMA/Ellen Pao crisis.
watwut 8y ago
Maybe, when we want comfortable hosting with all cool features one would wish in one place for free, just maybe, it is impossible to have it forever. Because the company and investors will run out of money one day, because we are not paying enough to host our stuff. Maybe google re-opens google code, but that wont be free open source either.
stealthmodeclan 8y ago
So it's not financially viable to run such companies without trick like these. If our financial system does not allow for companies like Github/Gitlab who provided positive value to society at large to sustain then perhaps the finanical system is to blame. About Github/Gitlab employees, I can provide them housing, food, and some soft benefits. Can they work for free so that Github/Gitlab become sustainable? Why government can't bless those companies to survive forever? The major problem in the world is that evil players like Microsoft have all money to do anything they want and positive contributor to society like Github can't earn money.
- x0x0 8y ago
  The acquisition was the almost inevitable outcome of decisions that github alone made: - comping employees with options and/or RSUs; - taking $350m of VC money.
  - stealthmodeclan 8y ago
    Had they not made those decisions, would they've managed to attract developers, pay bills and keep their lights on? Do the founders wanted billions or a big impact on the world? Today, they've sold their customers to an evil tech empire.
- DesiLurker 8y ago
  My working hypothesis is that more 'evil' the player is higher the margin they'll have because by definition they are providing as much value to their customers. problem is this means they'll have a lot more resources to burn on 'non-essential' avenues such as lobbying and kickbacks. this, IMHO, is the reason you see the rise of so many BS professions all the while little hourly worker is getting squeezed out. honestly I dont see an end in sight. far as the govt goes, its a good idea but the problem is the moment you take survival fear out of a company right that moment they'll start dragging their feet and become unproductive. so you are back to square one. IMO a social utility like model needs to evolve. And we need near religious zeal on enforcing antitrust/monopoly law.
benatkin 8y ago
Here's how you get the instructions to install the open source version of GitLab on Ubuntu: - Google "install gitlab ubuntu" - Click the first link - Choose Ubuntu - Notice that it says ee in the command and think, oh, that's enterprise edition, I want the open source edition: sudo EXTERNAL_URL="http://gitlab.example.com" http://gitlab.example.com" apt-get install gitlab-ee - Look around and finally find the link "CE or EE" - Read "If you're interested in using GitLab, we recommend you download and install GitLab Enterprise Edition" and shake your head - Scroll to the bottom - Note that you fit into the category "If you only want to download open source software Community Edition is the best choice" and think, maybe I'm one of those "open source zealots" I've been hearing about - Click "Install GitLab Community Edition"
- Improvotter 8y ago
  This is because the Enterprise Edition includes the Community Edition. If you don't have a license, it'll use the EE as the CE version. This only makes it easier for new people to get started. It also has the benefit that if you want to switch, you don't have to set the entire thing back up. Info: https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-ee/?distro=ubuntu https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-ee/?distro=ubunt...
  - ljm 8y ago
    Why call it Enterprise Edition or EE everywhere when you have to write documentation about the reason for that naming and the intricacies around the licensing? And then explain that the unlicensed EE is actually CE which is just the MIT licensed code and the other stuff is not under that license? No one's going to expect that, they're going to think they're on a trial. It sounds like a shady marketing ploy considering you could provide `sudo apt install gitlab-ce` in addition to `sudo apt install gitlab-ee` (or even just have `sudo apt install gitlab`). This isn't making it easier, it's just shifting the burden onto the user and hoping they'll pay up because they got a nerfed 'enterprise' install.
dosshell 8y ago
> Rebase merge requests before merge > Approve Merge Requests What!? This is not true. You can both rebase and approve merge requests with with Gitlab ce. You can even force semi-linear history. The webpage must be outdated - or did i misunderstood something? Source: I do it every day.
neuromantik8086 8y ago
This isn't really that surprising when you see it as part of a general trend of open source software being used to achieve vendor lock-in [1]. [1] http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2014/09/how-to-achieve-vendor-lock-in-with-a-legit-open-source-license-affero-gpl/ http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2014/09/how-to-achieve-ven...
iddan 8y ago
Stop the clickbait
naikrovek 8y ago
I've heard good things about this:https://github.com/gogs/gogs https://github.com/gogs/gogs I heard those good things here, iirc.
TylerJewell 8y ago
Disclaimer - I am CEO of WSO2, a pure open source company. We philosophically oppose open core business models. The author is speaking to the differences between the open core and open source business models. I've been writing increasingly about the differences between these models on my Medium blog about WSO2's growth story, our thoughts on the MULE acquisition by CRM (another open core vendor), and our open source business model. WSO2 is a pure open source business model and we believe that it's more honest, efficient, and scalable. Also, if executed in the right manner, there is no risk from IP exploitation. We have been able to demonstrate that as we are growing on an ARR basis faster than MULE with an equal customer net dollar retention with negative churn, while getting to cash flow positive operations. Our biggest rationale on why this is the case is that our internal teams do not compromise productivity by perpetually wrestling with where the “for free/for pay” line must be drawn. It is expensive for an enterprise vendor to determine the best model of where for-fee options reside. Not only does the vendor have to develop a strategy, but they must communicate this to all their employees and then justify it to the open market. This is evidenced in this thread and in the many HN threads for Gitlab - their management team has to invest time and energy into explaining the philosophy that was used to establish the line. It's rarely intuitive, so some non-zero effort goes into that education internally and externally. These costs are passed along to customers and require significantly higher forms of capital from investors. This line does not stay static, either. The nature of open source is that is erodes and impedes upon the areas where a vendor is selling their proprietary extensions. This means the “for free/for pay” line must be periodically rethought. This is a continual process, and this is time where inefficiencies are introduced. In the pure open source model, we just tell our developers to design and build. And we can focus on a single pricing solution of value in and around that overall platform. It saves us a lot of emotional capital, too, because people get very committed on where they think the free / for pay line must be drawn. Finally, it lets us be more up front with customers. They know that our sales reps have nothing to gain by suggesting one tech stack over another. Customers can use the entire stack before they talk to us and so if they are really engaged, then we are engaged for a value added subscription for all of the right reasons, and we don't have to lengthen the sales cycle while they try to decide which route they want to take - open source or proprietary. [1] https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-growth-story-and-why-open-source-is-the-only-way-to-solve-your-integration-challenges-32a72b173e0a https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-growth-story-and-why-open-... [2] https://blog.usejournal.com/salesforces-acquisition-of-mulesoft-is-a-triumph-for-investors-disaster-for-open-source-2e5252005860 https://blog.usejournal.com/salesforces-acquisition-of-mules... [3] https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-open-source-business-model-3ffea58feb8b https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-open-source-business-model...
jacksmith21006 8y ago
GitLab has been this fantastic secret and now with MS buying GitHub so many people are coming over worry it will mess it up.

258 points by thefilmore 8y ago

There's honestly nothing new here. GitLab calls itself open core because only the Community Edition (CE) is open-source and the Enterprise Edition is source-available. Anyone, after five minutes of looking at GitLab.com, knows this. They aren't hiding it and it's already incredibly public. They've even publicly talk about their 100+ user-relevant rule for features that decides what CE doesn't get [1] I don't understand what compelled the author to write this but GitLab CE really is open-source. Stop the FUD. [1]: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10923838

ktpsns 8y ago
Furthermore, Gitlab has a brilliant documentation which makes very clear which features are available in which version of the program. This distinction goes even into the documentation of the (JSON) API. What is advertised as open source is really open source, you can browse it yourself. Find it at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce -- btw, this is a ~3GB repository, afaik you won't be able to host such a large repository at github.com for free. With self-hosted gitlab, you can do this without any hazzle.
- dalore 8y ago
  Also the issues are all on public and anyone can comment and see what the devs are saying about it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Someone1234 8y ago
> I don't understand what compelled the author to write this but GitLab CE really is open-source. To counter all the comments throughout today claiming that GitLab is the bastion of Open Source. There's nothing wrong with GitLab or their "open core" business model, but a lot of posters today surrounding the GitHub acquisition have been misstating GitLab's OSS credentials. GitLab did nothing wrong. But facts somethings need to be restated.
- sullyj3 8y ago
  I agree, and I think this is a valid reason. However, I think the author could have been more explicit about this (assuming that this in fact the author's reason for writing the post, and not a steelman)

ng12 8y ago

> Both versions have their sources published on GitLab with the former having an MIT license and the latter a proprietary one which requires a paid subscription with GitLab. So, it is open source? Doesn't this fall under the adage of "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?"

devmunchies 8y ago
the enterprise version is not opened source? big deal. gotta support free software somehow and that is a respectable way.
- ng12 8y ago
  It is open source though: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ Open source doesn't mean you can't charge for your work.
  - adambrenecki 8y ago
    Open source doesn't just mean that the source is publicly available, either, though. This definitely isn't an open source license: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE
    - ng12 8y ago
      Why not? You can modify/redistribute it, you can't just deploy it to production without having a valid subscription. It's not Free Software, but it is Open Source.
      - the_af 8y ago
        Free Software and Open Source's differences are more philosophical than technical/legal [0]. This means that if something cannot be Free Software it cannot, more often than not, be Open Source either. If you cannot deploy it without a paid subscription, it's not Open Source by most commonly accepted definitions of the term. ---- [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en....

syshum 8y ago

And how much of GitHub is Open???

Harvey-Specter 8y ago
That's not relevant to the discussion of whether or not GitLab is open source.
pythonaut_16 8y ago
More than you'd expect, as they've open sourced and contributed to a number of open source projects based on their development of Github.com
- syshum 8y ago
  Github is a perfect match for MS, both of them are hostile to the idea of Free Software They open source tools for devs, things like Library's, Frameworks, IDE's etc. Never end products. They oppose the ethics of Free Software, Open source for them is a way to get free labor

dpedu 8y ago

Even if every last byte of Gitlab and the bits behind it aren't OSS, it is lightyears ahead of GitHub in terms of source availability. And while I suspect the gap will only grow, I'd love for Microsoft to make me wrong.

draw_down 8y ago
Exactly, which is what makes the "Microsoft LOVES open source!!!!" angle of this acquisition so strange. If they love open-source so much why did they acquire the closed-source service?
- bdcravens 8y ago
  Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.
    - tazjin 8y ago
      The Github repository for the kernel is a mirror of the actual kernel.org repository. The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.
      - cma 8y ago
        He's not talking about them using Github as his example, he's talking about them using Bitkeeper in the past.
    - dpedu 8y ago
      I don't think we can compare the state of OSS then to now.
    - 8y ago

amyjess 8y ago

> Furthermore, the free version running on GitLab.com is the Enterprise Edition. This means that if you wish to move from their hosted service to your own one, you would be losing several features and would even have to pay to import your projects based on the above list. Just because GitLab.com runs EE doesn't mean all EE features are made available to all users. Most if not all EE-only features are behind a paywall on GitLab.com; you still have to pay to use them even if you don't self-host.

Kostic 8y ago

I cannot disagree more. The open source core is very featureful for its price, it's easy enough to host on premise and UX is very good. Granted, the paid version has some nice features and there were some problems in the past when people wanted to integrate features found in the paid version to the open core but that's the price of living in current times. Money is still needed to create and maintain something. Maybe one day when we start living in a Star Trek society.

sytse 8y ago
Thanks! The article asked "what chunk of GitLab will be considered “core” in the future?". We try to detail this on https://about.gitlab.com/stewardship/#what-features-are-paid-only https://about.gitlab.com/stewardship/#what-features-are-paid... "All stages of the DevOps lifecycle is available in GitLab CE"
- __manuels__ 8y ago
  You are right, looks like the author did not even try to make any enquiries...

nightfly 8y ago

Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. My organization would benefit from the "Rebase merge requests before merge" and "Use fast-forward merges when possible" features quite a bit, and we are an in educational environment with lots of volunteers so using the Enterprise edition isn't viable at all. These features aren't technically difficult to implement, but even if we wrote open source versions of them we'd have to carry our own internal fork of Gitlab since there is no chance upstream would accept them since they've already decided they don't /want/ those features in the "community" edition.

dpedu 8y ago
I'm not familiar; are the features you mentioned new and perhaps not "ready" or ported to Gitlab OSS? But if they're older features in "proprietary" Gitlab then I'd have to agree. Edit: a bit off topic, but why do you want "Rebase merge requests before merge" - wouldn't `s/merge/testing/` be much more useful?
dpark 8y ago
> Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. I understand that criticism, but what else would you gate except useful features? The entire point of this style of sales is to enable a "freemium" model with highly valuable features locked behind the pay-gate.
- tonyarkles 8y ago
  In the parent's defense, the two features listed aren't really what I think of when I think of "enterprise" features. I think more of things like SAML and Active Directory integration, auditing, etc.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Sure, but that's essentially a branding criticism (labeling them "enterprise" features) rather than a criticism of the "open core" model.

vignesh_m 8y ago

Whoa, those are some pretty big features I assumed were "core".Static pages, fast-forward merges, Git hooks - aren't these core reasons to use a git website instead of just git+remote

greenhatman 8y ago

Phabricator is 100% open source. https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/ https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/

colemickens 8y ago

It seems that most of the discussion has been around GitLab and then Gogs/Gitea. I hope folks also give attention to other, possibly less-discussed code collaboration platforms that have arguably more open development than GitLab here. For example, I believe Fedora is developed via Pagure, which also importantly supports "remote" pull requests. (https://pagure.io/pagure https://pagure.io/pagure) (Fedora's instance: https://src.fedoraproject.org/ https://src.fedoraproject.org/) There's also Kallithea, but I haven't looked at it much. (https://kallithea-scm.org/ https://kallithea-scm.org/)

rdtsc 8y ago

> GitLab has two version of its software - GitLab Community Edition, the open-source version, and GitLab Enterprise Edition. I think the context is the comparison with Github. So where is the Github open source community edition with MIT licensing? > The question then is - what chunk of GitLab will be considered “core” in the future? None of the additional enterprise features seem to be core features so it's just one core then? Maybe the author is not a native English speaker so it's not clear what a "core" is.

tomcatfish 8y ago
Believe the posters asking how we know that they won't shrink the feature set in the future in comparison to the existing codebase by introducing updates or quality-of-life improvements in the Enterprise version and not in the open version

n4r9 8y ago

I think I understand why this article was written, but earlier today I looked up GitLab on Wikipedia and feel like I came away with a more comprehensive understanding of GitLab's structure along with its history and motivations and with less reading time to boot.

jph 8y ago

GitLab LICENSE file: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE The way I read it, GitLab is open source in three senses: 1) GitLab core is MIT 2) GitLab enterprise edition is all published code 3) The GitLab EE license specifically gives the user permission to modify code and publish patches within the broad EE license.

mankash666 8y ago

GitLab or ANY company has no obligation to give away it's work under liberal OSS terms. GitLab is NOT a charity, the hypocritical expectation of OSS while still expecting silicon-valley style exorbitant compensation for being an employee is clearly at odds, companies can only afford such salaries if they eke out handsome profits. Ergo, if you expect a good salary for your work, prepare to pay for good products. RedHat is the ONLY company managing a reasonable revenue stream while being fully open source. If you like/love GitLab/GitHub, you'll want them to thrive financially, and there's no clearer path to financial stability than charging for close source software, as proven by decades of enterprise and consumer facing companies.

ModernMech 8y ago
> RedHat is the ONLY company managing a reasonable revenue stream while being fully open source For their size. There are other open source projects that are actually profitable. They're just not billion dollar companies. e.g. ghost.org
- mankash666 8y ago
  Ghost is NOT a for-profit company, you can't compare them to companies whose mission is profit. Unless you're implying the pursuit of profit to be unacceptable, this is an apples to oranges comparison
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    > you can't compare them to companies whose mission is profit. Why not? They're a non-profit, sure, but that doesn't make them a charity. Like Redhat, they also don't have an obligation to give anything away for free. They just have an obligation to make sure at the end of the day, there's no money left over in the form of profit. And yet, they manage to not only generate revenue on an open source project, they make enough to keep the company afloat. That's not to say their model would work for gitlab or github. Ghost works because they're small. But the point I'm trying to make is there is a model demonstrated by Ghost and others that allows for small fully open source project to support itself, while not relying on a closed core.

teraflop 8y ago

Flagged as clickbait. "Gitlab Has Both Open-source And Closed-source Versions" would be more accurate, but that's not as attention-grabbing a headline, is it?

cjoy 8y ago

In general I have sympathy for the free core + pay for enterprise features approach. Seems like a fair model. Where it starts to fall apart for me, is when basic quality of life features like a usable code review (do not trigger a notification for every line I comment) are tagged as “enterprise features”.

jordigh 8y ago

"Open core" is just plain ol' proprietary software. Mac OS X is "open core" in the very literal sense that kernel and core are synonyms. It's really no big innovation to be selling secret sauce on top of free software; Android is also "open core" as is Matlab. Nowadays literally almost all proprietary software has bits of weakly-licensed free software in it such as curl or React. I've never been very impressed by GitLab's claims of openness. The only difference seems to be that you can get most of the useful things of GitLab as free software whereas Darwin, Linux, or LAPACK+FFTW are not the most attractive parts of macOS, Android, or Matlab. Call me when you manage to make a business without forcing any kind of EULA whatsoever on your customers. That will be the real innovation.

pythonaut_16 8y ago
I strongly disagree. GitLab is open core because I can run and use the software in a meaningful way under open source licenses. MacOs is substantially different because I cannot take their open source kernel and run a functioning version of MacOs
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jordigh 8y ago
  Well, you used to be able to do that with macOS, but I think they stopped that from happening in the last few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#OpenDarwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#Open... Gitlab may one day also decide that their core is too large and too useful to let everyone play with it too. Also, you're not strongly disagreeing with me. I said the same thing, the only difference is that you can get most (but not all) of the useful things from whatever GitLab currently considers its core to be.
  - innerspirit 8y ago
    Google took the same approach with Android, releasing non-OSS versions of their OSS apps, and not updating the OSS ones anymore.

rburhum 8y ago

GitLab open sources most of their core source. They never said they were 100% - and even this concept is crazy. At some point you have to realize that they need to have scalable business model, and this is what they have chosen to do. Good for them, it is working.

akerro 8y ago

Author doesnt understand concepts of opensource, dual-licensing, copy-left and copy-right. Nothing to see here.

ianamartin 8y ago

This kind of sort-of open source needs a word. Openium source or something. You get the basics under open source with all that implies. And if you want the premium features, that's also there in a sort-of open source way.

zokier 8y ago
Open core is pretty well-established phrase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core

shazow 8y ago

Like most things, "Open Source" is relative and spans a gradient. It can be open but undocumented, it can be open but with closed components, it can be open but broken, it can be open but closed to outside contributors, and so on. The most important question is whether it's forkable? If X decided to go against its community, how painful would it be to fork X and for the community to continue without the maintainer's support? Is GitLab more open source than GitHub? Absolutely. If I committed substantial resources integrating with "the GitLab way of doing things" and then GitLab pulled the rug on me, would I be able to retain my investment by forking off the product? For most things, yes. I'm all for GitLab becoming even more open source, but they deserve the accolades they've gotten so far.

ramshorns 8y ago

It depends what you care about. Some would say it doesn't matter if the server software is free and open source, so long as you can use the service without running any proprietary software yourself. And GitLab is pretty good in that regard, with the website's JavaScript under a free license. https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html

duxup 8y ago

I look forward to the next panic that sends folks fleeing back to sourceforge.

luka-birsa 8y ago

I've been a user of gitlab for 4yrs+. Its a great tool and a nice alternative to github for all us crazy "i want to have code on-prem" folks. That being said gitlab ce and its relationship to ee is more and more complicated. What started out at missing select features is now full out armaggedon of lacking features. See latest releases and youll see that all the cool stuff is comming out only to ee. Whats even worse, the pricing is insane - some nice features are in the extreme tier that costs insane ammounts od money. There was a time when we considered dropping all other tools and moving to gitlab. Now were actually migrating to jira for issue tracking. We're considering jenkins as alternative to gitlab ci. And if we see the rift growing too large, we'll move to phabricator (kindof sad we didnt go that direction 4yrs back).

brianwawok 8y ago
We went Gitlab to Bitbucket + Jira. Quite a bit more power, for less money (even after paying for cloud testers).
- jbergstroem 8y ago
  I think the Atlassian stack "wins" in the ~200-500 users range for enterprise companies but price doubles if you want the "cloud edition" (read: run on more than one vm). I asked for a few quotes of the gitlab EEU (ultimate) edition and found prices competitive.
  - marcinkuzminski 8y ago
    You should check out RhodeCode as well. It integrates with Redmine/Jira/Jenkins/TeamCity etc quite well, and it's suited to work for teams of 100-1000+ with enterprise feature focus
- brightball 8y ago
  I’ve been wondering why Bitbucket just gets ignored with all the Github news. I get that Gitlab is the new hotness but they’ve been offering free private repos before gitlab was even a thing.

skywhopper 8y ago

I don't really agree with the premise here. Gitlab is getting lots of new users because of the Github/MS deal but if those users cared about how open-source their git host was, they would not have been using Github. And the value that Github and Gitlab.com provide have nothing to do with their source code availability. They both provide a relatively trustworthy community resource on which to share your code without having to run your own public server. Yes, Gitlab has generated goodwill by having an open-source version of their product, and lots of people have tried it out for self-hosted needs. And so they are the natural first place people will flock to. But the main reason people are moving to Gitlab.com is because it provides an easy and open place to host source code that remains (for now) independent from the tech oligopolists.

zantana 8y ago

This rush to Gitlab reminds me of the forecasted mass reddit exodus to voat in during the AMA/Ellen Pao crisis.

watwut 8y ago

Maybe, when we want comfortable hosting with all cool features one would wish in one place for free, just maybe, it is impossible to have it forever. Because the company and investors will run out of money one day, because we are not paying enough to host our stuff. Maybe google re-opens google code, but that wont be free open source either.

stealthmodeclan 8y ago

So it's not financially viable to run such companies without trick like these. If our financial system does not allow for companies like Github/Gitlab who provided positive value to society at large to sustain then perhaps the finanical system is to blame. About Github/Gitlab employees, I can provide them housing, food, and some soft benefits. Can they work for free so that Github/Gitlab become sustainable? Why government can't bless those companies to survive forever? The major problem in the world is that evil players like Microsoft have all money to do anything they want and positive contributor to society like Github can't earn money.

x0x0 8y ago
The acquisition was the almost inevitable outcome of decisions that github alone made: - comping employees with options and/or RSUs; - taking $350m of VC money.
- stealthmodeclan 8y ago
  Had they not made those decisions, would they've managed to attract developers, pay bills and keep their lights on? Do the founders wanted billions or a big impact on the world? Today, they've sold their customers to an evil tech empire.
DesiLurker 8y ago
My working hypothesis is that more 'evil' the player is higher the margin they'll have because by definition they are providing as much value to their customers. problem is this means they'll have a lot more resources to burn on 'non-essential' avenues such as lobbying and kickbacks. this, IMHO, is the reason you see the rise of so many BS professions all the while little hourly worker is getting squeezed out. honestly I dont see an end in sight. far as the govt goes, its a good idea but the problem is the moment you take survival fear out of a company right that moment they'll start dragging their feet and become unproductive. so you are back to square one. IMO a social utility like model needs to evolve. And we need near religious zeal on enforcing antitrust/monopoly law.

benatkin 8y ago

Here's how you get the instructions to install the open source version of GitLab on Ubuntu: - Google "install gitlab ubuntu" - Click the first link - Choose Ubuntu - Notice that it says ee in the command and think, oh, that's enterprise edition, I want the open source edition: sudo EXTERNAL_URL="http://gitlab.example.com" http://gitlab.example.com" apt-get install gitlab-ee - Look around and finally find the link "CE or EE" - Read "If you're interested in using GitLab, we recommend you download and install GitLab Enterprise Edition" and shake your head - Scroll to the bottom - Note that you fit into the category "If you only want to download open source software Community Edition is the best choice" and think, maybe I'm one of those "open source zealots" I've been hearing about - Click "Install GitLab Community Edition"

Improvotter 8y ago
This is because the Enterprise Edition includes the Community Edition. If you don't have a license, it'll use the EE as the CE version. This only makes it easier for new people to get started. It also has the benefit that if you want to switch, you don't have to set the entire thing back up. Info: https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-ee/?distro=ubuntu https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-ee/?distro=ubunt...
- ljm 8y ago
  Why call it Enterprise Edition or EE everywhere when you have to write documentation about the reason for that naming and the intricacies around the licensing? And then explain that the unlicensed EE is actually CE which is just the MIT licensed code and the other stuff is not under that license? No one's going to expect that, they're going to think they're on a trial. It sounds like a shady marketing ploy considering you could provide `sudo apt install gitlab-ce` in addition to `sudo apt install gitlab-ee` (or even just have `sudo apt install gitlab`). This isn't making it easier, it's just shifting the burden onto the user and hoping they'll pay up because they got a nerfed 'enterprise' install.

dosshell 8y ago

> Rebase merge requests before merge > Approve Merge Requests What!? This is not true. You can both rebase and approve merge requests with with Gitlab ce. You can even force semi-linear history. The webpage must be outdated - or did i misunderstood something? Source: I do it every day.

neuromantik8086 8y ago

This isn't really that surprising when you see it as part of a general trend of open source software being used to achieve vendor lock-in [1]. [1] http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2014/09/how-to-achieve-vendor-lock-in-with-a-legit-open-source-license-affero-gpl/ http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2014/09/how-to-achieve-ven...

iddan 8y ago

Stop the clickbait

naikrovek 8y ago

I've heard good things about this:https://github.com/gogs/gogs https://github.com/gogs/gogs I heard those good things here, iirc.

TylerJewell 8y ago

Disclaimer - I am CEO of WSO2, a pure open source company. We philosophically oppose open core business models. The author is speaking to the differences between the open core and open source business models. I've been writing increasingly about the differences between these models on my Medium blog about WSO2's growth story, our thoughts on the MULE acquisition by CRM (another open core vendor), and our open source business model. WSO2 is a pure open source business model and we believe that it's more honest, efficient, and scalable. Also, if executed in the right manner, there is no risk from IP exploitation. We have been able to demonstrate that as we are growing on an ARR basis faster than MULE with an equal customer net dollar retention with negative churn, while getting to cash flow positive operations. Our biggest rationale on why this is the case is that our internal teams do not compromise productivity by perpetually wrestling with where the “for free/for pay” line must be drawn. It is expensive for an enterprise vendor to determine the best model of where for-fee options reside. Not only does the vendor have to develop a strategy, but they must communicate this to all their employees and then justify it to the open market. This is evidenced in this thread and in the many HN threads for Gitlab - their management team has to invest time and energy into explaining the philosophy that was used to establish the line. It's rarely intuitive, so some non-zero effort goes into that education internally and externally. These costs are passed along to customers and require significantly higher forms of capital from investors. This line does not stay static, either. The nature of open source is that is erodes and impedes upon the areas where a vendor is selling their proprietary extensions. This means the “for free/for pay” line must be periodically rethought. This is a continual process, and this is time where inefficiencies are introduced. In the pure open source model, we just tell our developers to design and build. And we can focus on a single pricing solution of value in and around that overall platform. It saves us a lot of emotional capital, too, because people get very committed on where they think the free / for pay line must be drawn. Finally, it lets us be more up front with customers. They know that our sales reps have nothing to gain by suggesting one tech stack over another. Customers can use the entire stack before they talk to us and so if they are really engaged, then we are engaged for a value added subscription for all of the right reasons, and we don't have to lengthen the sales cycle while they try to decide which route they want to take - open source or proprietary. [1] https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-growth-story-and-why-open-source-is-the-only-way-to-solve-your-integration-challenges-32a72b173e0a https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-growth-story-and-why-open-... [2] https://blog.usejournal.com/salesforces-acquisition-of-mulesoft-is-a-triumph-for-investors-disaster-for-open-source-2e5252005860 https://blog.usejournal.com/salesforces-acquisition-of-mules... [3] https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-open-source-business-model-3ffea58feb8b https://blog.usejournal.com/wso2s-open-source-business-model...

jacksmith21006 8y ago

GitLab has been this fantastic secret and now with MS buying GitHub so many people are coming over worry it will mess it up.