Dear open-source maintainers, a letter from GitLab

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 ]