They're not really open source, they're open core which is a little different. Sure, their core's license is open source compatible, but their philosophy is definitely more about stratifying between free and paid.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say Gitlab is an open source company, which is a very specific term with a very specific meaning.

Does a mission statement starting with "Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration" mean they're focused on open source or not?

It doesn't matter what they say, one should look at their actions. Acta non verba.

So we came full circle on my original point...

It's strange how you're asking questions to make your point instead of just stating your point outright. I initially thought you genuinely didn't know so I answered you, not knowing you were simply being sarcastic instead.

I made my point in my first comment.

> I'd expect any open source focused company* to merge beneficial changes.

I didn't think I needed to spell out that means "they're not acting like they're talking", but you made a reply that clearly missed it.

And my point which you seem to have missed is, it never matters what anyone or any organization says, the only thing that matters is what they do, therefore assume and act accordingly

Oh so your point is the default cynic's defense of bad behavior.

"Don't call them out on their doublespeak, they can't help it"

I guess I was being charitable in assuming you had more to say than that.

Not sure what to tell you, if you want to take companies at their word and believe them, you do you.