That's a really good point, and something I did not think about. -- Tyler Romeo https://parent5446.nyc 0x405D34A7C86B42DF
From: Greg Grossmeier <[email protected]> Reply: Wikimedia developers <[email protected]> Date: October 7, 2015 at 13:19:55 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [Wikitech-l] GitLab licensing (was Re: GitLab CI) <quote name="Tyler Romeo" date="2015-10-07" time="12:44:52 -0400"> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Brian Gerstle <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the correction & link, Greg, will check that out. Is this > > different than GitHub's approach? Is it better or worse? > > > > GitHub is entirely proprietary. So technically yes, GitLab's approach is a > little better, since at least some core part of the software remains open. With my non-work hat on[0], it's not really a matter of "better" or "worse". GitHub doesn't mince words; they are proprietary. Gitlab, however, has tremendously annoyed the FLOSS community[1] by doing a "bait and switch" type move. Promoting their openness but also keeping more than just the "secret sauce" locked up. See the things which they keep proprietary: https://about.gitlab.com/features/#compare Basic things like "git hooks". :/ Not a great example working relationship with FLOSS partners. Greg [0] Sending with my personal email address but via my wmf gmail account because I'm not subscribed to wikitech-l with my personal email. [1] At least those who I talk with, including those in prominent FLOSS community positions, who were hoping for gitlab to be great. -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
