GitLab really made it to become a great tool. In the beginning it was pretty copy-cat of GitHub. These days they provide a ton of features which are well integrated.

I'm starting to like it more than GitHub. And comparing the GitLab vs. the GitHub workflow, GitLab makes somehow more sense.

Let's see what happens in the next few weeks. Maybe I push more things to GitLab instances.

#GitHub #GitLab #git #VCS


I went with it because it's and because on you can have private repositories on the free plan. I find it more comfortable to start off private until everything is more or less up to speed, then switch to public.

Besides, it is a sort of European startup (Ukrainian-Dutch, though by now most VC comes from the US).

But yeah, I like it, especially the CI stuff is well done.

I'm actually not the biggest fan of I prefer self-hosted/friend-hosted setups. is "too full" for my taste. Also they run an open core model so their hosted version is iirc non-free (as in freedom).


I know how to run/self-host Gitlab myself. Just that I can host it myself doesn't mean it's fully free software. Free software is about Licenses, and runs Gitlab EE which is non-free licensed:

GitLab CE is free software:


Ok, I thought you were talking about CE.

However, from reading the EE licence, it does look like a free software licence to me, although I am sure this can be debated.

@61 @sheogorath
EE is open-core. Client-side is opensource as any non EE exclusive code (anything that is in CE), but running it requires a subscription.

If you want 100% free software you need to run CE. That's what runs, for example.

If you are OK running on top of an opencore, you can use

The biggest advantage is that you can export everything and migrate to your own instance at any time (CE or EE)

Thank you @brodock

I note that the source to EE is also available¹ for anyone to download, install and modify so it is definitely open source². Originally it was under the but that seemed to confuse customers, according to a comment from sytse here:


² Yes, I know the difference between free and open source software.



No, it's not OS (as defined by OSI):

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software […]. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

vs Gitlab EE License:

"You agree that GitLab
[…] retain all right […]
to all such modifications […], and all such modifications […] may only be […] distributed […] with a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct
number of user seats."

/cc @brodock


The term for this kind of license is source-available. Which is quite a big difference. You can read it, you can modify it and so on, but it's still not open source, as it doesn't match the requirements of the OSD.

Licensing is a complicated area. Hope this helps to see through this jungle.




Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here, but I do not see that EE fails to meet the requirements of free software.

I do follow Stallman's descriptive philosophy rather than the OSI prescriptive definition which, to me, results in occultation of the forest by a large number of trees.

To me, the requirement for payment to run the software in your own metal does not alter its status.

Point is moot because of CE anyway


Sign in to participate in the conversation
En OSM Town | Mapstodon for OpenStreetMap

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!