5 ms·

I wish the money would go towards lobbying the government for more direct support for open source projects in the $1 billion range. It still is a great ROI for

I wish the money would go towards lobbying the government for more direct support for open source projects in the $1 billion range. It still is a great ROI for the feds and other governments. Companies that use open source software as well as create it should lobby the government for funding open source as well. This would include Google, IBM, Redhat, Microsoft, Facebook....

jondubois 10y ago
Agreed, and the money would be more fairly distributed. Many of the open source projects mentioned already have a pretty strong vested financial interest behind them. They are no longer true open source projects. I think it's natural for popular open source projects to eventually turn into businesses but I think there is a point where they really shouldn't be considered 'open source' any more and Mozilla is definitely one of them.
- fsloth 10y ago
  "They are no longer true open source projects." As long as the source is open under a permissive licence they are open source. If someone has figured out a way to make a profit model around it - I would say, that is a bonus as it entails support for a long time and guarantees end-user-valuable goals driving the project.
- moosingin3space 10y ago
  That sounds a bit like a No True Scotsman argument there...
- slavik81 10y ago
  There are clear criteria for what constitutes open source. Perhaps, 'indie projects' would better capture the feeling you're trying to express.
- windlep 10y ago
  If 'open source' isn't about having.... I dunno, all your source-code being licensed under an OSS license... then what exactly is it? I think the word you're having more of an issue with isn't 'open source', but defining what exactly a 'project' is vs. a business. On that latter point, I would agree with you that a project doesn't seem as much of a 'project' when most of the core people are employed to work on it towards specific goals the funders have designated.
  - Retra 10y ago
    That's how most projects work. This one just isn't a hobby.
- tn13 10y ago
  When was the last time government was responsible for distributing something fairly? I think the consumers of the open source software must be responsible to ensure financial health of those projects and not tax payers. Simply because in such cases more useful projects would thrive where as bad projects would die out quickly. The last thing I want to hear is that Mozila called Bill Clinton for a lecture paid him $1M and later Hillary gave a grant of $100M of my money to Mozilla. That is how governments works.
bluGill 10y ago
Non profits have to watch the rules about lobbying. I'd be surprised if Mozilla could do anything usefully.
aardvark291 10y ago
> I wish the money would go towards lobbying the government 501(c)3 charitable ("non-profit") organizations are not permitted to lobby the government. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying
- tn13 10y ago
  I guess they can always call Bill Clinton to deliver a talk.
- eximius 10y ago
  I understand the reason for that but man it seems backwards.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  Wait, non-profits (generally seen as organizations doing good by their very definition) cannot lobby but other organizations (with making money as their principal goal) can?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    It's that particular classification that cannot not all non-profits.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    You can form a group to lobby the government. You can't be treated as a charity and have your donors get tax deductions for it. > generally seen as organizations doing good by their very definition This isn't true at all. They just don't pass profits to shareholders.
    - haberman 10y ago
      > This isn't true at all. They just don't pass profits to shareholders. "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501-c-3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

jondubois 10y ago

Agreed, and the money would be more fairly distributed. Many of the open source projects mentioned already have a pretty strong vested financial interest behind them. They are no longer true open source projects. I think it's natural for popular open source projects to eventually turn into businesses but I think there is a point where they really shouldn't be considered 'open source' any more and Mozilla is definitely one of them.

fsloth 10y ago
"They are no longer true open source projects." As long as the source is open under a permissive licence they are open source. If someone has figured out a way to make a profit model around it - I would say, that is a bonus as it entails support for a long time and guarantees end-user-valuable goals driving the project.
moosingin3space 10y ago
That sounds a bit like a No True Scotsman argument there...
slavik81 10y ago
There are clear criteria for what constitutes open source. Perhaps, 'indie projects' would better capture the feeling you're trying to express.
windlep 10y ago
If 'open source' isn't about having.... I dunno, all your source-code being licensed under an OSS license... then what exactly is it? I think the word you're having more of an issue with isn't 'open source', but defining what exactly a 'project' is vs. a business. On that latter point, I would agree with you that a project doesn't seem as much of a 'project' when most of the core people are employed to work on it towards specific goals the funders have designated.
- Retra 10y ago
  That's how most projects work. This one just isn't a hobby.
tn13 10y ago
When was the last time government was responsible for distributing something fairly? I think the consumers of the open source software must be responsible to ensure financial health of those projects and not tax payers. Simply because in such cases more useful projects would thrive where as bad projects would die out quickly. The last thing I want to hear is that Mozila called Bill Clinton for a lecture paid him $1M and later Hillary gave a grant of $100M of my money to Mozilla. That is how governments works.

bluGill 10y ago

Non profits have to watch the rules about lobbying. I'd be surprised if Mozilla could do anything usefully.

aardvark291 10y ago

> I wish the money would go towards lobbying the government 501(c)3 charitable ("non-profit") organizations are not permitted to lobby the government. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying

tn13 10y ago
I guess they can always call Bill Clinton to deliver a talk.
eximius 10y ago
I understand the reason for that but man it seems backwards.
lucb1e 10y ago
Wait, non-profits (generally seen as organizations doing good by their very definition) cannot lobby but other organizations (with making money as their principal goal) can?
- protomyth 10y ago
  It's that particular classification that cannot not all non-profits.
- danielweber 10y ago
  You can form a group to lobby the government. You can't be treated as a charity and have your donors get tax deductions for it. > generally seen as organizations doing good by their very definition This isn't true at all. They just don't pass profits to shareholders.
  - haberman 10y ago
    > This isn't true at all. They just don't pass profits to shareholders. "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501-c-3 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...