[rpaik]

Please see my response above. Enterprise Edition(EE) code is open to everyone and wider community members have also been contributing to EE.

[ddevault]

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.

[sytse]

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.

[cortesoft]

That is the definition as defined by that one group... but others have a different definition.

Just because you own the domain name doesn't mean you get to be the only source for a word's definition.

[deckar01]

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.

[chrisseaton]

Ah it’s about licence not code availability.

[IshKebab]

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.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Yep. After all, Windows was source available in different forms even in the "old Microsoft" era (education and government programs, IIRC).