On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 19:40 +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: > > > I am also not very keen on using a system with a "open core / enterprise" > > > model. For such a crucial service I would really prefer a real open source > > > system. But maybe I am alone with that oppinion. > > > > You are not alone, but please do not call Gitlab CE not "real open source". > I do for every software which forces me to sign things like: > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/legal/individual_contributor_license_agreement.md [...] I don't see what's so unreasonable about that. They're asking you to provide the same licence for your contributions, as the licence for the existing Gitlab software. Every FOSS project expects that, even if they don't make such a formal statement of it. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Any smoothly functioning technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part