On Wednesday 08 June 2016 11:10 PM, 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 > > Thats far away from what I call open source. I also don't want to end with > things like: > > Debian needs feature X but it is already in the e.nterprise version. We make > a patch and for commercial reasons it never gets merged (they already sell it > in the enterprise version). Which means we will have to fork the software and > keep those patches forever. Been there done that. For me, that isn't > acceptable. > I don't want another Nagios. I agree this is a legitimate concern. I have asked Gitlab Inc for their policy on merge requests to Gitlab CE for features already in Gitlab EE. Based on their reply, we can decide how to proceed. If their reply is positive, I will ask them to make it public, and we can go ahead with a debian.net instance of Gitlab. If their reply is negative, we can drop gitlab and consider Pagure (second best option). > Alex >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature