It's not that speculative. It's predictable from the direction the company I work for is going in. > Moving a significant part of the infrastructure is no jok

It's not that speculative. It's predictable from the direction the company I work for is going in. > Moving a significant part of the infrastructure is no joke, and requires extremely pressuring reasons. Licensing of course is one of those, but it's not necessarily the general case. "Extremely pressuring reasons" can be as simple as "we don't like that clause in the contract with supplier X, so we now have to move to supplier Y. Yes, I do mean everyone." We've gone through precisely this in another part of our estate, and it triggered a 10 month migration which is still in flight. IP constraints combined with "we must only pay once for a given function" is easily enough. > I also doubt that there are so many companies with large projects on GH and small, "wildcat" projects on GL - GH dwarfs GL for hosted services. I can only talk about what I can see: an enterprise, where external GH and internally hosted GL both started very small, and have now consolidated into a single GH org and two (or three? not sure) internal GL services. I'd be pushed to guess where more projects currently live. Relevant to this conversation: as a company, we looked at GH Enterprise, and decided against it. Or probably more accurately, didn't decide for it. I don't know the reasoning (but I suspect cost). > Pointy hairs are not really relevant, since they may take any decision (even the opposite) for any whim. Since they are the ones making the decisions, their reasoning is extremely relevant. There is a logic to how they work, it's just not the one engineers on the ground would pick. So, for instance, they probably won't care about speed of forking unless it actually gets in the way of delivery. Interestingly, one place GL is winning internally is GitLab CI.