8 ms·

It's really sad. I always thought there are lots of companies, acting like WhatsApp ( $1,000,000 donation to FreeBSD [1] ) and return back value to open source,

It's really sad. I always thought there are lots of companies, acting like WhatsApp ( $1,000,000 donation to FreeBSD [1] ) and return back value to open source, the same way they got value out of it. I'm really surprised that instead of "lots" I have to write "some". I also think that it's a much bigger win, financially and for P.R., to donate some of the profits, instead of paying the taxes in selected tax-paradise countries. 1: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/49056/ https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/49056/

reaperducer 9y ago
A lot of big companies, even in 2017, don't have a very good in-house process for buying software that isn't available on CDROM from a preferred distributor (CDW, etc...) One place I worked, it was easier to order a new work van for the department than a $30 program because the program could only be downloaded, and not bought in a box.
- mamcx 9y ago
  So, how about repackage the app on cds?
- mschuster91 9y ago
  The reason is kickbacks. The CxO level gets either direct kickbacks (or, in holding company layouts, the mothership company) or by invitations to golf weekends. So they try to keep people from buying from non-approved (i.e. no kickback agreement) vendors as much as possible, no matter if the company loses on the long term (worker happiness, productivity). Also, keeping records, both financial and stuff like license expiration is easier with one to a dozen suppliers than hundreds. The major enterprise vendors (eg MS, Adobe and Acronis) actually have dedicated enterprise license management solutions, which a tiny shop usually does not.
sosborn 9y ago
How do you know that these other companies aren’t contributing in other ways (code, testing, bug reports, etc.)?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  If only the supermarket lady could take some pull requests as payment.
- vsl 9y ago
  Because he’s a maintainer and sees it daily, as I do. The best that most companies “contribute” are poor bug reports served with entitled attitude and expectation that you’ll fix the issue they’re having. PRs? Nah, not even if you ask for them. There are exceptions but they are very rare.
pjmlp 9y ago
Not at all, from my consulting experience many companies, specially the ones whose main business is not software related, hardly give anything back. FOSS is seen by upper management as a way to avoid paying for software, instead of pirating it, and contributing code back is frowned upon.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Crontab 9y ago
I totally agree with you but at the same time - we can't tell people something is free and then get upset when they treat it as such.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  We shouldn't tell them it is free, but rather that they can have higher confidence in it as they can examine or change it.
- fnl 9y ago
  Which then gets us to the topic of GPL vs MIT & friends.... :-)
- kelnos 9y ago
  We don't; unfortunately English is silly and uses the same word for "no-cost" as for "open". While we implicitly give away the software for no cost, we don't really try to brand it as such (though for some, lack of cost is certainly a big plus). It's a shame "open source" got co-opted by the OSI and the Free Software purists are left to continue to use "free". I doubt something like "libre" would catch on; some people use it, but it doesn't seem to be used widely enough.

reaperducer 9y ago

A lot of big companies, even in 2017, don't have a very good in-house process for buying software that isn't available on CDROM from a preferred distributor (CDW, etc...) One place I worked, it was easier to order a new work van for the department than a $30 program because the program could only be downloaded, and not bought in a box.

mamcx 9y ago
So, how about repackage the app on cds?
mschuster91 9y ago
The reason is kickbacks. The CxO level gets either direct kickbacks (or, in holding company layouts, the mothership company) or by invitations to golf weekends. So they try to keep people from buying from non-approved (i.e. no kickback agreement) vendors as much as possible, no matter if the company loses on the long term (worker happiness, productivity). Also, keeping records, both financial and stuff like license expiration is easier with one to a dozen suppliers than hundreds. The major enterprise vendors (eg MS, Adobe and Acronis) actually have dedicated enterprise license management solutions, which a tiny shop usually does not.

sosborn 9y ago

How do you know that these other companies aren’t contributing in other ways (code, testing, bug reports, etc.)?

pjmlp 9y ago
If only the supermarket lady could take some pull requests as payment.
vsl 9y ago
Because he’s a maintainer and sees it daily, as I do. The best that most companies “contribute” are poor bug reports served with entitled attitude and expectation that you’ll fix the issue they’re having. PRs? Nah, not even if you ask for them. There are exceptions but they are very rare.

pjmlp 9y ago

Not at all, from my consulting experience many companies, specially the ones whose main business is not software related, hardly give anything back. FOSS is seen by upper management as a way to avoid paying for software, instead of pirating it, and contributing code back is frowned upon.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Crontab 9y ago

I totally agree with you but at the same time - we can't tell people something is free and then get upset when they treat it as such.

AsyncAwait 9y ago
We shouldn't tell them it is free, but rather that they can have higher confidence in it as they can examine or change it.
fnl 9y ago
Which then gets us to the topic of GPL vs MIT & friends.... :-)
kelnos 9y ago
We don't; unfortunately English is silly and uses the same word for "no-cost" as for "open". While we implicitly give away the software for no cost, we don't really try to brand it as such (though for some, lack of cost is certainly a big plus). It's a shame "open source" got co-opted by the OSI and the Free Software purists are left to continue to use "free". I doubt something like "libre" would catch on; some people use it, but it doesn't seem to be used widely enough.