On 08/06/16, 10:41pm, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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.
Nodejs requires that as well. Nothing wrong with it. And in that case, calling node.js not real open source, would be quite a mistake. -- ⨳ PGP 0x13EC43EEB9AC8C43 ⨳ https://ghostbar.co
