Gitlab.io provides commercial hosting for Gitlab, the free open source git management platform.
If the emphasis is on being free then strikethrough "commercial". Could be replaced with "official" but could sound over-promoting.
I think it's important not to hide the fact that hosting is based on open source gitlab project. In this case it's a good thing as gitlab.io owners are also the main developers of Gitlab.
What puzzles me a bit is that Gitlab tagline [1] says it's based on Gitolite. Gitolite license is GPL2 [2] while Gitlab is MIT [1]. How is Gitlab project maintaining license compatibility? The question does not necessarily affect Gitlab.io service.
EDIT: gitorius->gitolite, AGPL->GPL2. Messed up project name in initial comment..
Thank you for the pointer. I modified the introduction to make it clear we run on Gitlab in the first sentence.
By the way, the Gitlab.io owner (me) is not the main developer of Gitlab (randx) https://github.com/randx
He is also mentioned in the 'Thanks to' section.
We state this clearly on gitlab.io, the first sentence in the section 'About the Gitlab project' is: "Gitlab is a separate project and is not affiliated with Gitlab.io."
"Fast, secure and stable solution based on Ruby on Rails & Gitolite. Distributed under the MIT License."
Gitolite is GPL2 and Gitlabs MIT. I was just wondering how Gitolite project keeps the license compatibility.
Please ignore my previous comment on AGPL vs MIT, that was due to my misreading of Gitorius->Gitolite. This misreading was probably affected by the http://gitlab.io/ site where it's said that "Gitlab ... similar to ... and Gitorious".
I wasn't aware that Bitbucket also offered merge requests, I've remove that sentence. Thank you for the correction.