"Open source projects: any project that uses a standard open source license and is non-commercial. It should not have paid support or paid contributors."
-- gitlab demonstrates ... something ... about their understanding of free software.
@joeyh jeez, that's not great.
@joeyh I find that very odd given the very commercial slant of the term 'open source'...
By that definition, git-annex is not Free Software (or 'open source' using their terminology)!
@joeyh I think their point (and I'll say I'm not fond of their marketing the GitHub exodus) is that if your open source project is making money, then it can pay for GitLab paid services. They aren't so much opening the door for free open source as they are trying to lure students and hobbyists who are leaving GitHub.
@joeyh I think I see what they're trying to do, but it will have obvious problems.
A bit like roll your own licenses; sounds good until someone says "but what about if ..."
I had a fair few of my projects on gitlab for years. Considering I think the sum total I have received is about $200 for 20 years (and not even for those projects) I think I qualify.
@joeyh thanks, the wording does seem at variance with what I understand of the intent.
Chasing up within GL, I'll let you know what the outcome is.
@joeyh ok, update in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/12222 - still not a free-for-all of course ^^
@joeyh To be fair, they didn't use the word "free software". Maybe they're out to split the terms from eachother!
@joeyh probably someone on marketing just pushed that information as theu read somewhere. The usual on companies 😅