- 199comments
- 591comments
- 23comments
- 205comments
- 89comments
- 59comments
- 8comments
- 1comments
- 61comments
- 610comments
- —discuss
- 20comments
- 31comments
- 1comments
- 51comments
- 151comments
- 140comments
- 303comments
- 367comments
- 1comments
- 221comments
- 166comments
- 30comments
- 98comments
- 56comments
- 25comments
- 28comments
- 127comments
- 64comments
- 133comments
The true core of GitHub (and GitLab) is Git itself. So both are open core where it really matters. Because both GitHub's and GitLab's essential operations are all done over the Git core, neither code and code history hosted on either system are locked in.
Where GitHub has slightly more lock-in and is less open than GitLab is its Issues system; One can only extract the data (via API) for import into an alternative system, whereas with GitLab you could run your own copy of the open source code (but you'd still have to do the data export-import as far as I can tell).
You indeed have to do the data export-import but we tried to make this more convenient with the project import/export https://gitlab.com/help/user/project/settings/import_export....
I see this was marked as a dupe, but I think it is different content. For example I don't think the encoder thing is widely known https://twitter.com/_JohnathanLyman/status/75585063275445452...
I realize that it seems different to you but that's (understandably) because you're so close to the story. To the typical HN reader this is the same topic as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12128546. It isn't in HN's interest to have two articles about that on the front page; nor is it in your interest, because readers will get ornery about it.
The thing to do instead is post a link in the original thread to let interested readers know that you put up a follow-up post. You can use the HN link if you want; the discussion will remain open even though we've marked the item as a dupe.
Thanks for the explanation Dang! Keep up the good work. I've posted a link to the blog post in the other thread.
This feels like a really weird situation for you guys. You want the selling point for your software to be that you're more open than proprietary platforms like GitHub but you're unwilling to actually commit to that and have to hide behind terms like 'open core' and 'source available'.
* I think even more people are surprised to find out that everything except Gitlab CE is closed source. If someone were choosing between hosting with GitHub or Gitlab.com then you're only competing only on features and community since they're both equivalent in terms of openness.
* And I hate nitpick on word choice but you don't get to so shamelessly hide behind your brand. There is no such thing as Gitlab; Gitlab Inc. releases a product called Gitlab CE with a similar but more limited feature set to Gitlab EE under an open source license. If Mercedes released a $10,000 car by stripping out features and using a cheap Volvo engine I know their marketing campaign, "Mercedes is now available for an affordable price" would leave a bad taste in your mouth.
I know you've been getting a lot of negative feedback recently on HN, at it seems, at least for me, that there is a huge demand for a truly Free-with-a-capital-F alternative to GitHub and you're falling short. A thousand Gitlab CE instances hosting a few OSS projects is nothing compared to your potential if you really embrace openness.
What do you mean with everything except GitLab CE? We have EE options that are also closed source but for example GitLab Runner https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ci-multi-runner is open source.
I'm open to changing it to GitLab Inc. in the blog post. Where would you like to see that?
I think the feedback on HN has been largely positive, for example see most of the top comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12128546 In that comment section people rightly called us out for calling ourselves an open source company, hence this blog post.
On of the most widely known Free-with-a-capital-F alternatives to GitHub was Gitorious. They couldn't make the business model work and had to sell the company or close it. We ended up acquiring them for the name recognition https://about.gitlab.com/2015/03/03/gitlab-acquires-gitoriou...
It is very hard to make 100% open source work. We tried donations, consulting, and paid feature development but neither worked. That is why we introduced the Enterprise Edition. Since we introduced that we've been able to make the open source edition a lot better.
GitLab CE is Free-with-a-capital-F but if you prefer to use something that doesn't also have a proprietary edition consider using Gogs. Because of our Enterprise Edition income we're paying the only full time developer on Gogs.