16 ms·
I'm sorry to hear this. For the reasons of running a proprietary version please see my other answer in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9139559
by sytse 12y ago
I'm sorry to hear this. For the reasons of running a proprietary version please see my other answer in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9139559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9139559
We have the CLA to ensure this we're on the right side of copyright law. But your article looks interesting and I'll read it.
Great to hear you plan to run GitLab CE, we hope you'll enjoy it.
- davexunit 12y ago>We have the CLA to ensure this we're on the right side of copyright law. I appreciate that. I think you have good intentions. The author of the article is Bradley Kuhn, who works at the Software Freedom Conservancy. He's an expert when it comes to the legal aspects surrounding free software projects, so perhaps having a conversation with him about the CLA would be a worthwhile experience.
- sytse 12y agoOK, thanks, we'll consider that.
- nymisunderrated 12y ago"We have the CLA to ensure this we're on the right side of copyright law." The CLA is only a license, another license than MIT, but doing _almost_ the same things. IIRC, the difference is that it gives you okay to make proprietary distributions without respecting MIT conditions. You do not need it to be "on the right side of copyright law". Using MIT-licensed code is on the right side of copyright law just as well. (unless what you want is to disobey poor old MIT)