5 ms·

Open core is just as bad as BSL.

benatkin 3y ago
Not true. GitLab may not be perfect but it is used in many open source places. HashiCorp's products have been rendered completely unworkable for places like Debian. https://salsa.debian.org/public https://salsa.debian.org/public
- tremon 3y ago
  What is that link supposed to show?
  - benatkin 3y ago
    That Debian is using GitLab. They have for some time.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Hmmm, how does the change to BSL affect Debian's infrastructure?
      - benatkin 3y ago
        I don't think Debian uses Terraform much, if at all, but if they do, I think they would start to phase it out. As for GitLab, it isn't changing to BSL, so they can keep using it.
        fomine3 3y ago
        What's the point that what Debian developers use? Historically, Linux developers used proprietary BitKeeper.
        dwaite 3y ago
        And they stopped when a change in licensing and license enforcement made such use unworkable?
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Over/under on GitLab going BSL?
  - Anon_Forever 3y ago
    GitLab will never go BSL. It has zero reason to. Its enterprise offerings are already under a proprietary license.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      I can think of a few: - https://www.google.com/search?q=gitlab+managed+service https://www.google.com/search?q=gitlab+managed+service - https://bitnami.com/stack/gitlab https://bitnami.com/stack/gitlab - https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-ckjudyryfdzjg https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-ckjudyryfdzjg
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Anon_Forever 3y ago
        >I can think of a few: Think of a few what? You listed a bunch of links to GitLab CE, which is not their enterprise offering, does not compete with their enterprise offering, and has an order of magnitude less functionality and no support. Again, their enterprise offering is already under a proprietary license. GitLab openly supports anyone deploying and managing GitLab CE: https://hub.docker.com/r/gitlab/gitlab-ce https://hub.docker.com/r/gitlab/gitlab-ce Not sure what you're alluding to?
GordonS 3y ago
What about open core do you find unfair, or otherwise take umbrage with.
pxc 3y ago
Because I love F/OSS, the open-source strategies that I like best don't involve any code not being available under an open-source license, e.g., dual-licensing (Qt) and pure support models (Red Hat). And I also agree that open-core ultimately means proprietary software, if you need the whole shebang. It also means that certain features will never be accepted into the core product even if the community develops them, because they'd bridge the software vendor's moat. But I don't think either not-fully-free-but-related-to-open-source model is as disappointing as the rug-pull of a license change itself. Aside: I think BuSL can be a great license for software that's not part of any customer/user's way of earning a living. Id Software basically used to informally use a similar scheme for all their game engines (and maybe still do?), where the engines get released as F/OSS some number of years after the game comes out, and that has ended up enabling the development of lots of good open-source games and game engines. It can basically undo the damage caused by our insanely long default copyright terms. Not the same thing as providing open-source code up front, but still a very pro-social thing to do.

Not true. GitLab may not be perfect but it is used in many open source places. HashiCorp's products have been rendered completely unworkable for places like Debian. https://salsa.debian.org/public https://salsa.debian.org/public

tremon 3y ago
What is that link supposed to show?
- benatkin 3y ago
  That Debian is using GitLab. They have for some time.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Hmmm, how does the change to BSL affect Debian's infrastructure?
    - benatkin 3y ago
      I don't think Debian uses Terraform much, if at all, but if they do, I think they would start to phase it out. As for GitLab, it isn't changing to BSL, so they can keep using it.
      - fomine3 3y ago
        What's the point that what Debian developers use? Historically, Linux developers used proprietary BitKeeper.
        dwaite 3y ago
        And they stopped when a change in licensing and license enforcement made such use unworkable?
candiddevmike 3y ago
Over/under on GitLab going BSL?
- Anon_Forever 3y ago
  GitLab will never go BSL. It has zero reason to. Its enterprise offerings are already under a proprietary license.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    I can think of a few: - https://www.google.com/search?q=gitlab+managed+service https://www.google.com/search?q=gitlab+managed+service - https://bitnami.com/stack/gitlab https://bitnami.com/stack/gitlab - https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-ckjudyryfdzjg https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-ckjudyryfdzjg
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Anon_Forever 3y ago
      >I can think of a few: Think of a few what? You listed a bunch of links to GitLab CE, which is not their enterprise offering, does not compete with their enterprise offering, and has an order of magnitude less functionality and no support. Again, their enterprise offering is already under a proprietary license. GitLab openly supports anyone deploying and managing GitLab CE: https://hub.docker.com/r/gitlab/gitlab-ce https://hub.docker.com/r/gitlab/gitlab-ce Not sure what you're alluding to?

GordonS 3y ago

What about open core do you find unfair, or otherwise take umbrage with.

pxc 3y ago

Because I love F/OSS, the open-source strategies that I like best don't involve any code not being available under an open-source license, e.g., dual-licensing (Qt) and pure support models (Red Hat). And I also agree that open-core ultimately means proprietary software, if you need the whole shebang. It also means that certain features will never be accepted into the core product even if the community develops them, because they'd bridge the software vendor's moat. But I don't think either not-fully-free-but-related-to-open-source model is as disappointing as the rug-pull of a license change itself. Aside: I think BuSL can be a great license for software that's not part of any customer/user's way of earning a living. Id Software basically used to informally use a similar scheme for all their game engines (and maybe still do?), where the engines get released as F/OSS some number of years after the game comes out, and that has ended up enabling the development of lots of good open-source games and game engines. It can basically undo the damage caused by our insanely long default copyright terms. Not the same thing as providing open-source code up front, but still a very pro-social thing to do.