> In this case there are very few truly "OSS companies" except for Red Hat and few other Linux distribution maintainers.

Okay then. Fine by me.

> Gitlab

Perfect example. They have OSS offerings. They are not an OSS _company_.

This also serves to exclude the hundreds of VC-backed "totally open source 100% not going to enshittify this when our investors come asking for returns". Which, again, I'm fine with.

The business model of the purist OSS company is not one that's been found to be terribly successful. Nevertheless, it _is_ one which has a sort of moral high ground at least. I would prefer to leave definitions as is so as to keep that distinction (of having the moral high ground) crystal clear.

Does that make sense?