3 ms·

That would be weird of them to merge them no ? The community can maintain a fork, but I wouldn’t except any company to maintain code that compete with their bu

That would be weird of them to merge them no ? The community can maintain a fork, but I wouldn’t except any company to maintain code that compete with their business model.

BoorishBears 4y ago
It's weird how you paint such a weird thing as a normal thing? I'd expect any open source focused company* to merge beneficial changes. You're essentially saying their business model is not just keeping things closed source but running interference on open source... * Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration. - https://about.gitlab.com/company/ https://about.gitlab.com/company/
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  They're not really open source, they're open core which is a little different. Sure, their core's license is open source compatible, but their philosophy is definitely more about stratifying between free and paid.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say Gitlab is an open source company, which is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Does a mission statement starting with "Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration" mean they're focused on open source or not?
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      It doesn't matter what they say, one should look at their actions. Acta non verba.
      - BoorishBears 4y ago
        So we came full circle on my original point...
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        It's strange how you're asking questions to make your point instead of just stating your point outright. I initially thought you genuinely didn't know so I answered you, not knowing you were simply being sarcastic instead.
        BoorishBears 4y ago
        I made my point in my first comment. > I'd expect any open source focused company* to merge beneficial changes. I didn't think I needed to spell out that means "they're not acting like they're talking", but you made a reply that clearly missed it.
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        And my point which you seem to have missed is, it never matters what anyone or any organization says, the only thing that matters is what they do, therefore assume and act accordingly
        BoorishBears 4y ago
        Oh so your point is the default cynic's defense of bad behavior. "Don't call them out on their doublespeak, they can't help it" I guess I was being charitable in assuming you had more to say than that.
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        Not sure what to tell you, if you want to take companies at their word and believe them, you do you.
mdaniel 4y ago
I bet I'm going to regret sticking my nose into this, but: If one thinks of the money GitLab is being paid as compensation for domain expertise, then accepting community implementations sounds fine. Someone took the time to implement a feature they found valuable, distributed under the MIT license, and GitLab didn't have to spend sprint points on implementing it, only on reviewing it for applicability across the supported use cases, congratulations: free code A reasonable counter-argument would be that GitLab needs ongoing money to do ongoing ownership over any such contributed feature, but that's true of every one of their MRs, enterprise feature or not Almost nothing on this list screams "domain expertise" to me: https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ultimate/#wu-ultimate-features https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ultimate/#wu-ultimate-featu... and the fact they mention "lock discussions" as an Ultimate tier but https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/discussions/#prevent-comments-by-locking-the-discussion https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/discussions/#prevent-comment... says "All tiers" makes this conversation super hard to have in good faith
- throwaway472919 4y ago
  Rarely do you pay based on actual cost, everything has price discrimination, loss leaders etc. Look at BMW's heated seat subscription, those who want them are subsidising the cost of fitting the unused parts for those who don't. But if that cost is low enough relative to their income, they don't care. It would cost Tinder next to nothing to give everyone unlimited super-likes, but they make a lot more money charging for them than they would charging everyone a flat fee (network effect++ / ladies' night for the 21st century). I'm not sure I like where all this will end up but - GitLab are hardly the worst offenders.
  - mdaniel 4y ago
    Those comparisons are not apples-apples since BMW and Tinder do not publish their source code under MIT licenses and invite contributions from their users. There is no self-hosted Tinder that serves as the competing "if you don't like our pricing, then start your own MyGitLabHosting.com" I hear you about "not the actual cost," but in software engineering -- to say nothing of SaaS offerings -- pinning down the actual cost per byte served or committed is incredibly hard Maybe GitLab is trying to see how much they can tighten the thumb screws before LONG STANDING advocates like me jump ship, and I'm sure the switching cost of a lot of their customers makes it akin to ransom, but for others they have deep enough pockets that they'd eat the switching cost out of spite and those fish may be big enough to swing their stock price the other way

That would be weird of them to merge them no ? The community can maintain a fork, but I wouldn’t except any company to maintain code that compete with their business model.

BoorishBears 4y ago

It's weird how you paint such a weird thing as a normal thing? I'd expect any open source focused company* to merge beneficial changes. You're essentially saying their business model is not just keeping things closed source but running interference on open source... * Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration. - https://about.gitlab.com/company/ https://about.gitlab.com/company/

satvikpendem 4y ago
They're not really open source, they're open core which is a little different. Sure, their core's license is open source compatible, but their philosophy is definitely more about stratifying between free and paid.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say Gitlab is an open source company, which is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Does a mission statement starting with "Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration" mean they're focused on open source or not?
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    It doesn't matter what they say, one should look at their actions. Acta non verba.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      So we came full circle on my original point...
      - satvikpendem 4y ago
        It's strange how you're asking questions to make your point instead of just stating your point outright. I initially thought you genuinely didn't know so I answered you, not knowing you were simply being sarcastic instead.
        BoorishBears 4y ago
        I made my point in my first comment. > I'd expect any open source focused company* to merge beneficial changes. I didn't think I needed to spell out that means "they're not acting like they're talking", but you made a reply that clearly missed it.
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        And my point which you seem to have missed is, it never matters what anyone or any organization says, the only thing that matters is what they do, therefore assume and act accordingly
        BoorishBears 4y ago
        Oh so your point is the default cynic's defense of bad behavior. "Don't call them out on their doublespeak, they can't help it" I guess I was being charitable in assuming you had more to say than that.
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        Not sure what to tell you, if you want to take companies at their word and believe them, you do you.

mdaniel 4y ago

I bet I'm going to regret sticking my nose into this, but: If one thinks of the money GitLab is being paid as compensation for domain expertise, then accepting community implementations sounds fine. Someone took the time to implement a feature they found valuable, distributed under the MIT license, and GitLab didn't have to spend sprint points on implementing it, only on reviewing it for applicability across the supported use cases, congratulations: free code A reasonable counter-argument would be that GitLab needs ongoing money to do ongoing ownership over any such contributed feature, but that's true of every one of their MRs, enterprise feature or not Almost nothing on this list screams "domain expertise" to me: https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ultimate/#wu-ultimate-features https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ultimate/#wu-ultimate-featu... and the fact they mention "lock discussions" as an Ultimate tier but https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/discussions/#prevent-comments-by-locking-the-discussion https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/discussions/#prevent-comment... says "All tiers" makes this conversation super hard to have in good faith

throwaway472919 4y ago
Rarely do you pay based on actual cost, everything has price discrimination, loss leaders etc. Look at BMW's heated seat subscription, those who want them are subsidising the cost of fitting the unused parts for those who don't. But if that cost is low enough relative to their income, they don't care. It would cost Tinder next to nothing to give everyone unlimited super-likes, but they make a lot more money charging for them than they would charging everyone a flat fee (network effect++ / ladies' night for the 21st century). I'm not sure I like where all this will end up but - GitLab are hardly the worst offenders.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  Those comparisons are not apples-apples since BMW and Tinder do not publish their source code under MIT licenses and invite contributions from their users. There is no self-hosted Tinder that serves as the competing "if you don't like our pricing, then start your own MyGitLabHosting.com" I hear you about "not the actual cost," but in software engineering -- to say nothing of SaaS offerings -- pinning down the actual cost per byte served or committed is incredibly hard Maybe GitLab is trying to see how much they can tighten the thumb screws before LONG STANDING advocates like me jump ship, and I'm sure the switching cost of a lot of their customers makes it akin to ransom, but for others they have deep enough pockets that they'd eat the switching cost out of spite and those fish may be big enough to swing their stock price the other way