4 ms·

> Once you open source a project, it is out in the open. Gitlab disproves this. E.g., they have no solution on the horizon for dealing with spam for their ope

> Once you open source a project, it is out in the open. Gitlab disproves this. E.g., they have no solution on the horizon for dealing with spam for their open source Gitlab Community Edition. That means that for common use cases like having an instance open to the public for participation in GSoC, a gitlab-ce instance will get eaten alive by indonesian casino spam (or whatever the current spam offerings happen to be). But they do have a solution for their proprietary Enterprise Edition which uses a proprietary blob. One of their employees suggested I just switch to that version because it's apparently available free of charge. The other possibility is to use whatever they run on their gitlab.com service. In that case it's not my instance so the license doesn't really matter as much. Nevertheless, I'm almost certain they are running their proprietary spam filter there so it's not open source either. In conclusion, this is a perfect refutation of the author's point. Start open, run a service that's free of charge, and slowly cut off the flow of key features to the open source version (or simply do not care about that flow). Edit: clarifications

zozbot234 5y ago
Gitlab are under no obligation to open-source specific features - rather, if the software is licensed under an OSD-compliant license, anyone has the right to fork it and add their own spam filtering. That's what openness is all about.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jancsika 5y ago
  I'm telling the author that there's virtually no threat of anyone forking gitlab-ce, for any reason whatsoever. Even though "anyone has the right," as you say, and even though the lack of spam filtering there makes gitlab-ce essentially useless as a public-facing repo service. Author claimed that open sourcing would equal less money for author. My argument is that is not a given nor even likely-- it depends on specifics wrt complexity of the software, difficulty of maintaining it, relationship of dev to users, etc.

zozbot234 5y ago

Gitlab are under no obligation to open-source specific features - rather, if the software is licensed under an OSD-compliant license, anyone has the right to fork it and add their own spam filtering. That's what openness is all about.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jancsika 5y ago
I'm telling the author that there's virtually no threat of anyone forking gitlab-ce, for any reason whatsoever. Even though "anyone has the right," as you say, and even though the lack of spam filtering there makes gitlab-ce essentially useless as a public-facing repo service. Author claimed that open sourcing would equal less money for author. My argument is that is not a given nor even likely-- it depends on specifics wrt complexity of the software, difficulty of maintaining it, relationship of dev to users, etc.