4 ms·

Lost me at: > An enhanced enterprise version Good thing it's towards the end, guess it's time for the next fork of gogs then.

bruce511 4y ago
I'm going to assume you are not an enterprise - forgive me if I'm wrong. Enterprises have very different needs to individual developers and small shops. So there are always features which apply to enterprises but not to small companies. Consider for example Active Directory integration. Equally purchasing in an enterprise is different to small companies. If you work for a small company you can basically go to a decision maker, make a case, and if accepted then money glows within the day. Enterprise businesses don't work like that. They basically can't just "donate money". There are a million layers to work through, and there have to be tangible reasons for spending the money - it can't be things like "good karma" etc. So for OSS projects that are used by (especially non-tech) enterprise customers, it makes sense to be an entity, and sell a product, that enterprises can buy. The inhibiter for an enterprise is not a lack of money on their side, its a lack of process on the OSS side which matches up to the process they have to fulfill.
- alias_neo 4y ago
  The issue, in my mind, if I was making a similar comment, is that projects seem draw the line in the wrong place for where "Enterprise" begins. I suspect this person's fears may be similar. The issue isn't that they'll offer enterprise, the issue is that they'll carve up the non-enterprise version as a differentiator. Inevitably, and I've seen this before, the non-enterprise version loses all steam because time and effort have to be focused on the enterprise customers, and feature parity can't be maintained because those differentiators have to show value in the enterprise offering. Those OSS users who built the community and contributed to your product for years end up having been beta testers, unceremoniously ushered out to find an alternative. Elastic for example made the mistake of making "secure" (by default) an "Enterprise" feature of Elastic Stack, then Amazon came along and ate their lunch. For me, I've seen this enough not to worry; if they go "south" in this respect, there are alternatives; and failing that, there's the minimalist approach of plain git.
  - guywhocodes 4y ago
    This is pretty much my sentiment as well. The problem is that the obscure integration problems are better solved by a system integrator if they are so bespoke they don't belong in the code base. I've worked with enterprise customers before and yes it tend to be LDAP and active directory stuff they ask for in terms of features. I run my own LDAP, am I enterprise? Further this undermines their argument. It comes off as "hey we want some of that pie". The alternative is the foundation route. Or just to start your own system integration business, not to muddy the lines.
    - bruce511 4y ago
      So, yes, (to answer both followups here) - obviously there's a danger that the OSS version gets less time and attention, and in many cases it'll start prioritising actual customers (ie those paying money) over folks using the OSS version. I certainly understand why those who are using software for free see this as the thin-edge-of-the-wedge, the start of the product morphing to something that is less free. On the other hand, despite the health risks, eating is still enormously popular. Developers want to get paid, and so they tend to gravitate towards models that, well, earn money. OSS is great (I'm a fan) but it doesn't pay the bills. OSS should be what you do in your spare time, not your day job. If OSS is your day job then either you're lucky, and someone is funding it, or it's only a matter of time before you need to switch to a different day job. Bottom line - if OSS doesn't sort out an actual funding model that works - if users (of the Libre version) aren't willing to pay real money, on a regular basis, en masse - then don't be surprised if the developers need to switch it up to earn a living. There's this perception that "big companies" should just fund all OSS for everyone, but I'm saying that this can never work - that's pretty much exactly what "big companies" are set up not to do.
      - alias_neo 4y ago
        I understand all of this. I'm a software engineer myself, and FLOSS advocate. The "complaint" is not that I don't understand _why_ this is happening, or even so much that it _is_ happening, but in my experience, this "commercialisation" of F/L/OSS is inevitably (I'd argue) net negative for the community built around it. Even if the core product doesn't become "paid" and we don't have this issue of whether or not people _should_ have to pay to use it, the quality of the "core" or "community" product will fall, anything new or interesting will get pay-walled and updates/features will be few and far between. I'd call this more lamentation of a loss than anything, Gitea isn't dead (yet) because of this, but I move forward cautiously to see what comes of it. What would be really interesting, would be to revisit this discussion in a year, two, maybe more and see what became of it.
- barnabee 4y ago
  The problem is when any of the features the enterprise wants to / can buy is closed source and not available on the same terms as the rest of the project.
  - bruce511 4y ago
    I'm not wanting to insult you here, so please read in that light. I'm not trying to be the dick here. >> The problem Problem to whom? Not the customer (the one paying the bills), not the developer (the one getting paid) but by "the rest" - the ones consuming but not contributing. >> closed source Unfortunately the term "open source" encompasses a group of freedoms - the lack of any of them leads us to the term "closed source". For some projects the freedom "removed" is the right to _distribute_ the proprietary source. In other words the source might be "open" in the sense that the customer has it, but it might be "closed" in the sense that they can't distribute it. I'd suggest that the freedom-lost in the "can't distribute" model is a good compromise (developers wanting to get paid.) I'm less favourable to a "binary blob" model. Clearly in the abstract projects could go either way. >> not available on the same terms ie - for free. I hear you, but I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to. The demand that they continue the project forever for no return seems, well, unfair.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > ...but by "the rest" - the ones consuming but not contributing. "contributing", when it relates to F/LOSS software, includes non-monetary activities, which you seem to be ignoring. Nevermind the fact that the so-called consumers are the whole reason why Gitea is in the position it is today. Without adoption, it would be a bunch of people making commits on an unknown codebase. Characterizing users as moochers is bad form, amd will not end well for Gitea, IMO. > I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to. The other side of the libre software coin is that the users have the right to fork the project and take it in a community-driven, non-profit direction if they want to.
      - bruce511 4y ago
dachary 4y ago
It means there will be a proprietary version of Gitea, named Gitea Enterprise or something similar. The company is based on an Open Core business model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model.
- kdumont 4y ago
  This is not the case. No one has said Gitea is going to an Open Core model.
- throwaccount12 4y ago
  Is it? The blog post calls out their participation with Blender, and reading the linked blender posts and videos where they talk about their work with the company they talk about the relationship being entirely about providing advice and support, I don't think blender bought some closed source software.
throwaccount12 4y ago
An enterprise version could be something like RHEL does where it's FIPS compliant or something.

bruce511 4y ago

I'm going to assume you are not an enterprise - forgive me if I'm wrong. Enterprises have very different needs to individual developers and small shops. So there are always features which apply to enterprises but not to small companies. Consider for example Active Directory integration. Equally purchasing in an enterprise is different to small companies. If you work for a small company you can basically go to a decision maker, make a case, and if accepted then money glows within the day. Enterprise businesses don't work like that. They basically can't just "donate money". There are a million layers to work through, and there have to be tangible reasons for spending the money - it can't be things like "good karma" etc. So for OSS projects that are used by (especially non-tech) enterprise customers, it makes sense to be an entity, and sell a product, that enterprises can buy. The inhibiter for an enterprise is not a lack of money on their side, its a lack of process on the OSS side which matches up to the process they have to fulfill.

alias_neo 4y ago
The issue, in my mind, if I was making a similar comment, is that projects seem draw the line in the wrong place for where "Enterprise" begins. I suspect this person's fears may be similar. The issue isn't that they'll offer enterprise, the issue is that they'll carve up the non-enterprise version as a differentiator. Inevitably, and I've seen this before, the non-enterprise version loses all steam because time and effort have to be focused on the enterprise customers, and feature parity can't be maintained because those differentiators have to show value in the enterprise offering. Those OSS users who built the community and contributed to your product for years end up having been beta testers, unceremoniously ushered out to find an alternative. Elastic for example made the mistake of making "secure" (by default) an "Enterprise" feature of Elastic Stack, then Amazon came along and ate their lunch. For me, I've seen this enough not to worry; if they go "south" in this respect, there are alternatives; and failing that, there's the minimalist approach of plain git.
- guywhocodes 4y ago
  This is pretty much my sentiment as well. The problem is that the obscure integration problems are better solved by a system integrator if they are so bespoke they don't belong in the code base. I've worked with enterprise customers before and yes it tend to be LDAP and active directory stuff they ask for in terms of features. I run my own LDAP, am I enterprise? Further this undermines their argument. It comes off as "hey we want some of that pie". The alternative is the foundation route. Or just to start your own system integration business, not to muddy the lines.
  - bruce511 4y ago
    So, yes, (to answer both followups here) - obviously there's a danger that the OSS version gets less time and attention, and in many cases it'll start prioritising actual customers (ie those paying money) over folks using the OSS version. I certainly understand why those who are using software for free see this as the thin-edge-of-the-wedge, the start of the product morphing to something that is less free. On the other hand, despite the health risks, eating is still enormously popular. Developers want to get paid, and so they tend to gravitate towards models that, well, earn money. OSS is great (I'm a fan) but it doesn't pay the bills. OSS should be what you do in your spare time, not your day job. If OSS is your day job then either you're lucky, and someone is funding it, or it's only a matter of time before you need to switch to a different day job. Bottom line - if OSS doesn't sort out an actual funding model that works - if users (of the Libre version) aren't willing to pay real money, on a regular basis, en masse - then don't be surprised if the developers need to switch it up to earn a living. There's this perception that "big companies" should just fund all OSS for everyone, but I'm saying that this can never work - that's pretty much exactly what "big companies" are set up not to do.
    - alias_neo 4y ago
      I understand all of this. I'm a software engineer myself, and FLOSS advocate. The "complaint" is not that I don't understand _why_ this is happening, or even so much that it _is_ happening, but in my experience, this "commercialisation" of F/L/OSS is inevitably (I'd argue) net negative for the community built around it. Even if the core product doesn't become "paid" and we don't have this issue of whether or not people _should_ have to pay to use it, the quality of the "core" or "community" product will fall, anything new or interesting will get pay-walled and updates/features will be few and far between. I'd call this more lamentation of a loss than anything, Gitea isn't dead (yet) because of this, but I move forward cautiously to see what comes of it. What would be really interesting, would be to revisit this discussion in a year, two, maybe more and see what became of it.
barnabee 4y ago
The problem is when any of the features the enterprise wants to / can buy is closed source and not available on the same terms as the rest of the project.
- bruce511 4y ago
  I'm not wanting to insult you here, so please read in that light. I'm not trying to be the dick here. >> The problem Problem to whom? Not the customer (the one paying the bills), not the developer (the one getting paid) but by "the rest" - the ones consuming but not contributing. >> closed source Unfortunately the term "open source" encompasses a group of freedoms - the lack of any of them leads us to the term "closed source". For some projects the freedom "removed" is the right to _distribute_ the proprietary source. In other words the source might be "open" in the sense that the customer has it, but it might be "closed" in the sense that they can't distribute it. I'd suggest that the freedom-lost in the "can't distribute" model is a good compromise (developers wanting to get paid.) I'm less favourable to a "binary blob" model. Clearly in the abstract projects could go either way. >> not available on the same terms ie - for free. I hear you, but I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to. The demand that they continue the project forever for no return seems, well, unfair.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > ...but by "the rest" - the ones consuming but not contributing. "contributing", when it relates to F/LOSS software, includes non-monetary activities, which you seem to be ignoring. Nevermind the fact that the so-called consumers are the whole reason why Gitea is in the position it is today. Without adoption, it would be a bunch of people making commits on an unknown codebase. Characterizing users as moochers is bad form, amd will not end well for Gitea, IMO. > I feel like developers have a right to take their project in a paid direction if they want to. The other side of the libre software coin is that the users have the right to fork the project and take it in a community-driven, non-profit direction if they want to.
    - bruce511 4y ago

dachary 4y ago

It means there will be a proprietary version of Gitea, named Gitea Enterprise or something similar. The company is based on an Open Core business model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model.

kdumont 4y ago
This is not the case. No one has said Gitea is going to an Open Core model.
throwaccount12 4y ago
Is it? The blog post calls out their participation with Blender, and reading the linked blender posts and videos where they talk about their work with the company they talk about the relationship being entirely about providing advice and support, I don't think blender bought some closed source software.

throwaccount12 4y ago

An enterprise version could be something like RHEL does where it's FIPS compliant or something.