I didn't say OpenStack and GitHub were precisely the same.

It was clear that in both cases, the concept at hand was that there are companies out there building a web-service product that relies on a free software base (e.g., OpenStack or git) but in which the ultimate product itself is not available as free software to the end users; in that case, OpenStack is an example of the component, while Github and Bitbucket were examples of the final product.

Nate

I think corvus has a point though: OpenStack has a non-profit that is producing a fully Free Software version, and that's what OpenStack itself is. Compare that to GitHub: Git itself *is* like OpenStack in that it's fully Free Software and is part of a non-profit (i.e, Conservancy), too, but GitHub produces the type of software I'm talking about.

I think the problem here is purely the naming: OpenStack proprietary/trade-secret forks/depoloyments aren't called OpenStack, whereas there's no ambiguity when you say "GitHub" what you mean (i.e., you don't mean Git).

I admit I need to be clearer about that point when I give the talk in the future.