[kollateral]

What I'm saying here is that if one commercial entity controls a project, then it can't ensure that others can trust that one day the feature their product depends on will be gone or changed.

> Do you also consider Gitlab or Red Hat products to be "not real open-source"?

Would you trust Gitlab so much that you'd build your own business on top of its open code and compete with Gitlab? I'd use Gitlab in my company but I wouldn't build on top of its code and hope that the future releases won't break my product.

> This is exactly why it's hard for companies like Docker to make money.

I agree with you on how hard it is for these companies to make money but then don't make money this way, what can I say? I'm just saying that what we call open-source needs to be neutral and that doesn't necessarily mean Google, Microsoft etc. will crush the company. Not a single open source project is crushed by those if they didn't allow it. It's all about competition and they're making a choice. Some say if you can't compete then collaborate (hand off some parts), some just keep working without them; maybe fail and no one hears about them even if it was a great idea or it was too good for those companies to be destroyed.

[zapita]

> Would you trust Gitlab so much that you'd build your own business on top of its open code and compete with Gitlab? I'd use Gitlab in my company but I wouldn't build on top of its code and hope that the future releases won't break my product.

That's a legitimate concern. But it has nothing to do with whether or not they are "real" open-source.