3 ms·

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 Activ

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.
- dnomad 8y ago
  This isn't really the "open core" model if the core is not actually open. GP would like to contribute these features themselves to the open core but GitLab likely would not allow it.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I don't agree with this assessment. Open Source does not require that the maintainers will allow you to push changes upstream that they don't like. Is AOSP not open source? Chromium? Atom? Linux? Linus rejects a lot of stuff. Now, it may be poor stewardship if valuable changes are rejected, but Open Source is about your freedom with the code, not the willingness of the project maintainers to commit your pet features.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    But absolutely nothing is preventing you from using a a fork of CE which adds every EE feature so long as they were developed independently of the closed-source EE code-base. Open source doesn't mean the maintainers have to accept your patches.
- tonyarkles 8y ago
  My personal take on the open core model is that I'm generally in favour with it, so long as the paid features are significant and make sense to be paid features. Like, the two features the parent are asking for could be added by an open-source contributor in an afternoon. Removing them from the CE edition and only including them in the paid version just feels like picking and choosing things to include or not include. An open core model done well is great. This doesn't seem to be an instance of that :)

3 ms·

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 Activ

by 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.
- dnomad 8y ago
  This isn't really the "open core" model if the core is not actually open. GP would like to contribute these features themselves to the open core but GitLab likely would not allow it.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I don't agree with this assessment. Open Source does not require that the maintainers will allow you to push changes upstream that they don't like. Is AOSP not open source? Chromium? Atom? Linux? Linus rejects a lot of stuff. Now, it may be poor stewardship if valuable changes are rejected, but Open Source is about your freedom with the code, not the willingness of the project maintainers to commit your pet features.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    But absolutely nothing is preventing you from using a a fork of CE which adds every EE feature so long as they were developed independently of the closed-source EE code-base. Open source doesn't mean the maintainers have to accept your patches.
- tonyarkles 8y ago
  My personal take on the open core model is that I'm generally in favour with it, so long as the paid features are significant and make sense to be paid features. Like, the two features the parent are asking for could be added by an open-source contributor in an afternoon. Removing them from the CE edition and only including them in the paid version just feels like picking and choosing things to include or not include. An open core model done well is great. This doesn't seem to be an instance of that :)