Maybe it's a generational question, but I would be pretty happy with 1-2GB (i.e. git history, and one artefact per platform).
I agree with this. This move makes perfect sense. I think GitLab does a lot already for the people that don't pay for the service.
---
In order to be accepted into the GitLab for Open Source Program, applicants must:
- Use OSI-approved licenses for their projects: Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license. [1]
- Not seek profit: An organization can accept donations to sustain its work, but it can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons, or by other means.
- Be publicly visible: Both the applicant's GitLab.com group or self-managed instance and source code must be publicly visible and publicly available.
---
("can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons")
I think it's quite fair to say you're not going to give free services out to open source projects that are seeking to fundraise beyond covering their costs.
Well I guess I would have to split out my one little private repo I use for my dotfiles into a separate account in order to qualify.
Quoting the requirements:
---
Who qualifies for the GitLab for Open Source Program? In order to be accepted into the GitLab for Open Source Program, applicants must:
- Use OSI-approved licenses for their projects: Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license. [2]
- Not seek profit: An organization can accept donations to sustain its work, but it can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons, or by other means.
- Be publicly visible: Both the applicant's GitLab.com group or self-managed instance and source code must be publicly visible and publicly available.
---
[1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati...