Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by jbk on Monday January 18, 2016 @09:26AM (#10924532)

Thanks a lot for the answer and the proposal. But we do not want to have anything critical that is not open source. We try to promote OpenSource, so using non-open-source software is hard to do.

1. Thanks, but see above :)

2. As I said, custom labels are way too limited, as people on the open-letter-to-github said, so I will comment on the issue.

3. Will do.

4. same as 1 :) But thanks a lot.

I will contact you :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by sytse on Monday January 18, 2016 @09:45AM (#10924628)

Thanks, I get that you don't want to be on proprietary code. I'm look forward to your email. And we're open to discussing open sourcing features if that is needed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by lenovouser on Monday January 18, 2016 @10:11AM (#10924798)

I don't know if that would apply to GitLab too, but maybe consider switching from the CE / EE model to just one "product" and a free for non-commercial model? Like e.g. http://3t.io/mongochef/download/ does it? I like that model way more than a feature-reduced version.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by sytse on Monday January 18, 2016 @10:20AM (#10924836)

We considered that but we value having a completely open source version for all projects more. For more information about how we see the difference between CE and EE please see https://about.gitlab.com/about/#stewardship

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by ymse on Monday January 18, 2016 @10:44AM (#10924972)

What about having a single product, and charging for a proprietary license + support? This may work better with GPL as many large orgs are allergic to it.

With MIT license, many sites probably just implement the branding changes etc in the CE product on their own.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by sytse on Monday January 18, 2016 @11:30AM (#10925270)

We want to give large orgs the option to run GitLab without having to pay us. We don't mind having people add features to CE, these are the same people that will send enahancements upstream and make GitLab better for everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by JoshTriplett on Monday January 18, 2016 @02:05PM (#10926166)

Have you ever considered using the AGPLv3 for the Community Edition, rather than the all-permissive MIT license?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by Macha on Monday January 18, 2016 @02:32PM (#10926342)

I'm pretty sure they take outside contributions for CE, so if that was AGPL3 they wouldn't be able to use it in Gitlab EE, which sounds like shooting themselves in the foot.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab by lmm on Tuesday January 19, 2016 @09:16AM (#10930853)

They could require a CLA for outside contributions. Many organizations do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]