- http://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq
Their page clearly says: "All for what you so love github - on your server" and "Keep your source code at your server!"
That said. This project is really neat. It's not everyday that you find opensource projects with decent UI.
Or closed ones.
 I just checked: GitLab stores issues in a database separate from git, therefore unless you have a solid backup plan for those, it will significantly increase the likelihood of you losing data. GitHub stores wiki pages at least as git objects, so when you clone your repository, you have a full backup of all of those.
If your team uses GitHub, you're paying a company to reliably store your data, and that's all the company does, and so I'm sure they have RAID0, plus backup drives, plus tape backups. If your team uses GitLab, you're hosting it yourself, so you are responsible for having reliable storage and backups. Obviously, it's infeasible for a tiny startup to have the same level of reliability that GitHub has.
palish's argument is that losing data is unlikely in either scenario. It's true that it's incredibly unlikely for both, but it's far more likely to happen if you roll your own solution. (It's incredibly unlikely that two values hash to one MD5. It's far less likely that two values hash to one SHA1. Either case is very unlikely, but SHA1 is magnitudes better.)
If you trust only local + gitlab, I would agree, you at are a higher risk than local + github. The point is, gitlab can be every bit as open and accessible as github, as to make it easy to have another account mirror your git repos. GitHub + free BitBucket private repos = cheap + reliable + redundant repos.
I can now have a local gitlab resource that I keep synced with repos in github, almost trivially. bliss
It's also a limitation you can get around by paying them more money, but that doesn't make this position that Gitlab is not competing with github seem any less arbitrary.
They hosted their code on github, doesn't make much sense to do that IMHO.
If the answer were the former, I'd have to say that many a team use Git internally without being able to host it on a third party service and would benefit from a simple UI to make things easier. If the answer was the later, I'd have to say that any code you intend to share with the community should be hosted on Github and Github only.
Or I could just be wrong, that their goal could simply as if they don't want people to share code with GitLab.
"Everything you love about github - on your server!"
This was the first thought that came to my mind! A really awesome project, was much needed.
I don't know how often I googled for "Open Source GitHub Clone" and never found this.
It also lacks one of github's most important features: A proper repository+fork graph like this: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10190786/octopus.html
Unless it's back from the dead, its development has long been abandoned. It works just fine, but the new kid on the block is Gitolite, and it makes far more sense.