I consider these kinds of companies 2nd Generation Open Source companies ... whereas the first generation of open source companies had an open source product and made their money off maintenance, the 2nd gen often have a bunch of components that are developed open source, but sell a closed source glue/package of all those components.

Companies like CoreOS, Mesosphere, all fall under this umbrella, where you could technically glue all their open source components together to form their main product, but it would take you quite a bit of time to support.

Github is sort of like this. They contribute a ton to open source, and are built mostly out of open source components (that ARE open source). But their website is really just a glue to all their infrastructure, and that's closed source.

That's a really great summary. It's an interesting alternative way for companies to produce a fair amount of open source contributions and still make money. I can definitely see this with other companies including ones that specialize in continuous integration and other services that developers are interested in.

> While git itself is open source, almost nothing else that Github does is open.

That's not true, they have lots of open source projects under their organization: https://github.com/github. It's not enough to build your own GitHub clone, but some significant parts are being developed in the open (jekyll, hubot, linguist, ..)

Ah, that is correct. I wish I could still edit. I also realize that my post makes it seems like github develops and directs git itself (they do not).

GitHub employs some people who work either full time or partially on git.

>While git itself is open source, almost nothing else that Github does is open.

This makes it sound like Github develops and open sources git, which it doesn't. They just built on top of it and have no control over the roadmap.

Quite true. I hadn't meant to make that implication but it is too late to edit.