I had no idea there were any closed-source features - I thought Gitlab was a passionately completely open-source company. They even open-source their arguments between their legal counsel and their developers!
The entire app is source available, you can download it and look at it all but a section of the features are licensed under a proprietary license which is what you pay for when you pick a gitlab plan.
This code might not be closed source, but it's definitely not open source - please be careful about your language. It's source available. Open source software is software which meets the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd
If GitLab truly cares about open source (and I believe you do), you should be protecting the term from misuse.
I totally agree we shouldn't call it open source if we mean proprietary and source available. We changed the classification of our company from open source to open core a while ago https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core... Sorry for the inconsistency in this thread.
Historically, the only people who have ever rejected the OSD have been people who think that open source ought to be more conveniently defined so that they can capitalize on the marketing potential of the phrase without meeting the actual criteria for being open source software. There have been systemmic efforts to gaslight the open source community like this. The fact is: term is and has always been defined by the OSD, the OSI is the group which invented the term "open source", and you cannot change the meaning of the phrase to suit your perverted financial needs. The term was never controversial before it started catching on and being a nuisance for people trying to sell proprietary software.
Calling software open source when it's not is lying at best and outright fraud at worst.
> the OSI is the group which invented the term "open source"
This isn’t true. They used an existing term. Have you ever wondered why it’s not a trademark to protect it? They weren’t able to trademark because it was an existing descriptive term.
This is complete revisionism. The OSI set out to create a new term, one that they could trademark and would otherwise match the meaning and intention of "free software".
They may have failed in the end, for a numer of reasons, but they were very rigorous in their search of prior usage and very open about their work. We can speculate in retrospect about what could have done differently, but saying they used an existing term is wrong both in intent and in practice.
It's not a trademark because they didn't apply for one. They regret this. The origin of the term is well documented: OSI did invent it. To argue otherwise is historical revisionism.
"OSI's application for an Open Source trademark had lapsed"
Why did they let it lapse? Because (as they knew) it wasn't trademarkable as it's a simple generic descriptive term.
"We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive."
> The origin of the term is well documented: OSI did invent it.
Not true!
See the links the my sibling commented posted for prior specific examples of 'open source software'.
And of course 'open source' is just a normal phrase that's been in use for much much longer! That's why they can't trademark - it's just a normal phrase people were already using.
The trademark is front and center in their (original) mission statement:
> The Open Source Initiative's mission will be to own and defend the Open Source trademark, to manage the www.opensource.org resources, to develop branding programs attractive to software customers and producers, and to advance the cause of open-source software and serve the hacker community in other appropriate ways.
No, it's well documented that the term was in use referring to "source available" software before they claim to have invented it. It might be a case of two groups coming up with the same term, but they were not the first.
You can't actually build EE from source. The license "key" is a block of code and if you've never payed for one, you don't know the format. Dev versions of these licenses are restricted to GitLab employees only, even though the license terms explicitly allow building and testing for development purposes.
Code availability is important too though. I'd much rather use something that had code available (e.g. Unreal Engine) than something that didn't (Unity) because sometimes things aren't documented and you need to read the source to find an answer.
