@james
Yes. They kept CE and EE in the same project creating this mess.

As @clacke said earlier:
> …there isn't really a CE distribution. There is one repo, where a certain directory is not open source. If you don't buy the proprietary license that code will not be used. There is only one installer. GitLab is fuzzier than it used to be.

Something tells me, this cleaning process can be automated. If this is the case, a libre version should definitely exist.

@codeberg

@james
Agree. I use notabug.org and codeberg for most projects.

One of the reasons I use GitLab.com for one of my projects is the Pages. When I moved away from GH there was no other alternative for Pages, didn't know of framagit.org. Codeberg didn't have Pages back then. Now moving again to a different service would mean changing urls everywhere. And the CB CI is fairly new and under testing, not ideal still.
@clacke @codeberg

@clacke
This is a bad decision that GitLab took. For example, even if framagit.org wanted to run only the open portion, without proprietary code, they'd still have to keep the proprietary codes there? Even if they don't run?

There should be a libre fork of GitLab software without those proprietary parts. It's a mess.

@codeberg @james

@codeberg
> The code it runs is still nonfree obviously…I don't have proof at hand currently.
If this is the case, it should be easy to detect. By just comparing with GitLab CE features/code. (Or maybe I missed something?) Do you mean the difference is in the backend and cannot be seen on frontend? If this is true and there is proof, this should be talked about more.

@james @derek