4 ms·

> 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

by 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....
      - mindcrime 8y ago
        It's not Open Source because the terms aren't compliant with the OSD[1]. And while the OSD may not be a de-jure definition of "Open Source" it is the de-facto definition in the popular vernacular around this subject. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
  - Matt3o12_ 8y ago
    But it is also commonly understood that open source means you can change and then distribute your changes. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia[0]: > Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design. You cannot do that with Gitlab EE but you can do it with the community version. The community version is a subset of Gitlab EE with a few features missing. But I completely agree. You cannot have it both ways. I don't think Gitlab could support their work just by providing commercial support. They need to have a "not so open source" version to sell. And just providing you with the source code to verify (and possible modify and fix if they were to ever go bankrupt), is a huge advantage over a fully closed source solution such as Github. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- mcepl 8y ago
  Besides, I heard that Gitlab as a company is in the black already (comparing to GitHub, which I believe is still in the red).
haeffin 8y ago
Usually when people speak about open source, they include not only not being able to view the source, but also the possibility to modify, distribute and use it (and modified versions) in the requirements for a license to be labeled an open source license.
- kerng 8y ago
  Exactly. For instance Windows source code has been "open source" for about 18 years or so via a license anyone can request. This is still not what most people think of when speaking about open source though. Edit: They call it Shared Source actually: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    Woah, what? The current version?
  - the_af 8y ago
    Yes, Shared Source, not open source. Microsoft (un)surprisingly understood the differences, back in the day, and avoided the latter term.
- ng12 8y ago
  From https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE: > ...and all such modifications and/or patches may only be used, copied, modified, displayed, distributed, or otherwise exploited with a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats. You can do all that assuming you have a license for your production users. It's not GNU-style Free Software, sure, but it still feels like Open Source to me.
  - geofft 8y ago
    It also means that if you write some generic code for GitLab EE, like a widget that lets you select git branches or validate some JSON or whatever, you can't reuse that code elsewhere. Copyright in the code you wrote is owned by GitLab, and nobody who's not a GitLab customer can use it. The ability to reuse code is IMO an important part of both open source and free software.
zelphirkalt 8y ago
Please don't confuse Open Source and Free Software. Open Source' ideals are not "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?". That is something of Free Software. Open Source does not care about the Free Software ideals. Except for that one thing, that source code shall be available.
- amyjess 8y ago
  The Open Source Definition [0] cares about more than just "that source code shall be available". Among other things, it says "The license must allow modifications and derived works" and "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". In fact, the OSD is nearly identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines [1]. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
- trevyn 8y ago
  And I can do what I want with it! :)
- mindcrime 8y ago
  Open Source does not care about the Free Software ideals. Except for that one thing, that source code shall be available. The meaning of Open Source is a lot more precise than just "the source code shall be available". See: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
geofft 8y ago
"Open source" is an incredibly ambiguous term. Some people use it to mean the literal "the source is open to the world." Some people use it to mean the Open Source Definition from the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd , which is a very small set of modifications of the Debian Free Software Guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines to make them not talk about Debian or use the term "free software". GitLab EE does not fit the Open Source Definition at all. Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of charge," but in practice there's a lot more ambiguity in the former, not the latter.
- webkike 8y ago
  Agreed. I personally prefer the term libre software because it is entirely unambiguous
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- da_chicken 8y ago
  > Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of charge," but in practice there's a lot more ambiguity in the former, not the latter. I would disagree. Both the terms "open source" and "free software" existed prior to the open-source software movement. Either way, you don't get to co-opt the plain English meaning just because you've invented your own jargon. That's not how language works.
  - the_af 8y ago
    I disagree with your disagreement. That's precisely how language works: we co-opt words and change their meaning all the time; this happens all the time with software, engineering and physics. Open source has come to mean something in the software development world (and it arguably never meant "the source is open to the public but they must pay for its use", so it's not even an actual subversion). Some companies now might be trying to redefine the term, and it's up to us -- the programming community -- to stop them by rejecting this redefinition.
sytse 8y ago
Free speech is a superset of free beer, not a subset. The proprietary version of GitLab is publicly viewable and amendable, but it is close source, not open source.
- ramshorns 8y ago
  It's neither a superset nor a subset. Some programs cost money to get a copy (or support or whatever), but then once you have the program you can do what you want with it. Here's the overlap diagram with a bunch more detail. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
jwalton 8y ago
GNU has listed "Four Essential Freedoms" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html to meet the definition of "free software". Does the gitlab-ee license meet these? I think for the most part it does, although I'm not sure this ever had a "subscription model" in mind when it was written. You can run the software, you can modify the software, you can distribute your changes... You could theoretically sell your modifications so long as third parties had a subscription with gitlab, although you'd have the weirdest business model ever.

by ng12 8y ago

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....
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      It's not Open Source because the terms aren't compliant with the OSD[1]. And while the OSD may not be a de-jure definition of "Open Source" it is the de-facto definition in the popular vernacular around this subject. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
- Matt3o12_ 8y ago
  But it is also commonly understood that open source means you can change and then distribute your changes. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia[0]: > Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design. You cannot do that with Gitlab EE but you can do it with the community version. The community version is a subset of Gitlab EE with a few features missing. But I completely agree. You cannot have it both ways. I don't think Gitlab could support their work just by providing commercial support. They need to have a "not so open source" version to sell. And just providing you with the source code to verify (and possible modify and fix if they were to ever go bankrupt), is a huge advantage over a fully closed source solution such as Github. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mcepl 8y ago
Besides, I heard that Gitlab as a company is in the black already (comparing to GitHub, which I believe is still in the red).

haeffin 8y ago

Usually when people speak about open source, they include not only not being able to view the source, but also the possibility to modify, distribute and use it (and modified versions) in the requirements for a license to be labeled an open source license.

kerng 8y ago
Exactly. For instance Windows source code has been "open source" for about 18 years or so via a license anyone can request. This is still not what most people think of when speaking about open source though. Edit: They call it Shared Source actually: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Woah, what? The current version?
- the_af 8y ago
  Yes, Shared Source, not open source. Microsoft (un)surprisingly understood the differences, back in the day, and avoided the latter term.
ng12 8y ago
From https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE: > ...and all such modifications and/or patches may only be used, copied, modified, displayed, distributed, or otherwise exploited with a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats. You can do all that assuming you have a license for your production users. It's not GNU-style Free Software, sure, but it still feels like Open Source to me.
- geofft 8y ago
  It also means that if you write some generic code for GitLab EE, like a widget that lets you select git branches or validate some JSON or whatever, you can't reuse that code elsewhere. Copyright in the code you wrote is owned by GitLab, and nobody who's not a GitLab customer can use it. The ability to reuse code is IMO an important part of both open source and free software.

zelphirkalt 8y ago

Please don't confuse Open Source and Free Software. Open Source' ideals are not "free as in free speech, not as in free beer?". That is something of Free Software. Open Source does not care about the Free Software ideals. Except for that one thing, that source code shall be available.

amyjess 8y ago
The Open Source Definition [0] cares about more than just "that source code shall be available". Among other things, it says "The license must allow modifications and derived works" and "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". In fact, the OSD is nearly identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines [1]. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
trevyn 8y ago
And I can do what I want with it! :)
mindcrime 8y ago
Open Source does not care about the Free Software ideals. Except for that one thing, that source code shall be available. The meaning of Open Source is a lot more precise than just "the source code shall be available". See: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

geofft 8y ago

"Open source" is an incredibly ambiguous term. Some people use it to mean the literal "the source is open to the world." Some people use it to mean the Open Source Definition from the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd , which is a very small set of modifications of the Debian Free Software Guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines to make them not talk about Debian or use the term "free software". GitLab EE does not fit the Open Source Definition at all. Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of charge," but in practice there's a lot more ambiguity in the former, not the latter.

webkike 8y ago
Agreed. I personally prefer the term libre software because it is entirely unambiguous
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
da_chicken 8y ago
> Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of charge," but in practice there's a lot more ambiguity in the former, not the latter. I would disagree. Both the terms "open source" and "free software" existed prior to the open-source software movement. Either way, you don't get to co-opt the plain English meaning just because you've invented your own jargon. That's not how language works.
- the_af 8y ago
  I disagree with your disagreement. That's precisely how language works: we co-opt words and change their meaning all the time; this happens all the time with software, engineering and physics. Open source has come to mean something in the software development world (and it arguably never meant "the source is open to the public but they must pay for its use", so it's not even an actual subversion). Some companies now might be trying to redefine the term, and it's up to us -- the programming community -- to stop them by rejecting this redefinition.

sytse 8y ago

Free speech is a superset of free beer, not a subset. The proprietary version of GitLab is publicly viewable and amendable, but it is close source, not open source.

ramshorns 8y ago
It's neither a superset nor a subset. Some programs cost money to get a copy (or support or whatever), but then once you have the program you can do what you want with it. Here's the overlap diagram with a bunch more detail. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

jwalton 8y ago

GNU has listed "Four Essential Freedoms" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html to meet the definition of "free software". Does the gitlab-ee license meet these? I think for the most part it does, although I'm not sure this ever had a "subscription model" in mind when it was written. You can run the software, you can modify the software, you can distribute your changes... You could theoretically sell your modifications so long as third parties had a subscription with gitlab, although you'd have the weirdest business model ever.