3 ms·

I've also worked at multiple companies where they were afraid of open source because the project might be abandoned. They would happily pay thousands for a clo

I've also worked at multiple companies where they were afraid of open source because the project might be abandoned. They would happily pay thousands for a closed source dependency because they could guarantee it would be supported. This could offer a nice medium where a company can be pretty sure that it will stick around (based on funding) and contribute to make sure that it does.

snowwrestler 7y ago
I like open source software projects and use them extensively on behalf of my employer. I care that they are healthy. That said, there is a huge difference between getting authorization to spend company money on a subscription or support contract (easy), vs. getting authorization to donate company money to a person, informal group or nonprofit (extremely difficult). A license or support contract is easy for the lawyers to understand, easy for procurement to understand, easy for finance to understand. That's how work gets done at a corporation, and they do those types of deals all day. Depending on the amount, I can sometimes turn around approval in hours. A donation is not "how work gets done". It has no strings attached, which looks scary to lawyers and finance and PR folks. In my company at least, donations have a separate approval path that loops in the PR and corporate citizenship folks... and they want to see that money go to something fuzzy and feel good, like a charity. "Donations" is a line in the budget; it's not a big one and it's not mine. So, I still think that the way forward for open source projects who want financial support from companies is to organize somehow (incorporate, nonprofit, etc) and sell support subscriptions. This aligns very well with how the corporation manages other dependencies, like office space, phone service, etc.

3 ms·

I've also worked at multiple companies where they were afraid of open source because the project might be abandoned. They would happily pay thousands for a clo

by RandallBrown 7y ago

snowwrestler 7y ago
I like open source software projects and use them extensively on behalf of my employer. I care that they are healthy. That said, there is a huge difference between getting authorization to spend company money on a subscription or support contract (easy), vs. getting authorization to donate company money to a person, informal group or nonprofit (extremely difficult). A license or support contract is easy for the lawyers to understand, easy for procurement to understand, easy for finance to understand. That's how work gets done at a corporation, and they do those types of deals all day. Depending on the amount, I can sometimes turn around approval in hours. A donation is not "how work gets done". It has no strings attached, which looks scary to lawyers and finance and PR folks. In my company at least, donations have a separate approval path that loops in the PR and corporate citizenship folks... and they want to see that money go to something fuzzy and feel good, like a charity. "Donations" is a line in the budget; it's not a big one and it's not mine. So, I still think that the way forward for open source projects who want financial support from companies is to organize somehow (incorporate, nonprofit, etc) and sell support subscriptions. This aligns very well with how the corporation manages other dependencies, like office space, phone service, etc.