4 ms·

Funding open source != paying thirty people a few hundred grand and the thousands they depend on nothing. It is an obvious resource allocation problem. Why sh

Funding open source != paying thirty people a few hundred grand and the thousands they depend on nothing. It is an obvious resource allocation problem. Why should the resources not come from the companies extracting the most cash value from open source?

root_axis 7y ago
Those companies contribute back monumental open source projects that would simply never exist without the level of funding, organization, and real business knowledge that those companies provide. The amount of open-source code given away freely by FAANG and similar corporations is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the wider community. Even much of the software itself is produced with open-source languages made possible by corporate sponsorship. All that open-source work contributes to the richness of the ecosystem just like everything that came before it, empowering the next generation to continue the cycle going forward.
- benologist 7y ago
  Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source. Most people cannot convert their contributions into money as deftly as FAANG has converted 10,000s of people's contributions into a quarter trillion dollars. It does not fund the tools that power their current open source projects. It does not fund the tools their next open source projects will use. It does not fund the brilliance their next open source projects will iterate on. It does not fund the mistakes their next open source projects will know to avoid. They need all of that stuff before they have even a clue what to make next, and they need the open source community to try everything a hundred different ways to see which is good. We will still be arguing about this in twenty years as open source transitions into a mostly Indo-Chino-Russo-African dominated landscape because western developers can't afford to work on open source unless it's through their employing-FAANG company. Long before that all the current FAANG open source we're supposed to be grateful to receive instead of funding will be obsoleted and tossed aside because only a handful of ideas in it actually mattered after all.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source As I already stated, yes, it does fund open source. That's literally what they're doing: spending funds on developing and maintaining open source code. Did they fund every transient piece of software in the technology stack? Of course not. It does not fund the... Corporate money funds all of those things you listed. No, not every single package that becomes popular, but many of them, including many informed by practical knowledge acquired through battle-tested experience operating such software in their businesses. > western developers can't afford to work on open source unless it's at a FAANG company. So what? If western developers can't afford to work on open-source software they shouldn't. I wouldn't expect anyone to work for free if they couldn't afford to do so.
    - benologist 7y ago
      You mentioned the wealthiest 0.000001% of open source projects in a discussion about how the other 99.999999% need funding as some kind of proof FAANG are pulling their weight. Just their cash savings weigh about 2,500 tonnes so they're obviously not pulling their weight at all. The so-what is software development evolution comes to a grinding halt while we wait for third-world and developing countries to hit the sweet spot where people can afford to pursue their art and afford the tools and connectivity it requires and afford the many years of learning to understand the steps between hello world and inventing kubernetes. Google didn't even invent kubernetes as much as they extrapolated to it from experience and open source.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        They don't need funding. Most open-source software is redundant, low quality, or extremely niche. It's ok if some open source software is simply never written. I think it's fair for developers to charge (or otherwise monetize, including ads) for their software, even if they open-source it, but they don't "need" funding any more than any other arbitrary piece of software that someone somewhere thinks should exist. > software development evolution comes to a grinding halt What's wrong with this? If "software development evolution comes to a grinding halt" then it means we didn't need any more new software and existing solutions have solved all problems.
BeetleB 7y ago
>Why should the resources not come from the companies extracting the most cash value from open source? This is easy to answer: Because most/all those open source writers explicitly said it's OK for the users of their software not to provide them cash for it. If I openly say you can use my stuff for free, and then later come and say you are morally obligated to pay me because you made huge profit from my stuff, then my integrity is compromised. It's totally fine to say "I will no longer respond to support tickets for free", though.

root_axis 7y ago

Those companies contribute back monumental open source projects that would simply never exist without the level of funding, organization, and real business knowledge that those companies provide. The amount of open-source code given away freely by FAANG and similar corporations is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the wider community. Even much of the software itself is produced with open-source languages made possible by corporate sponsorship. All that open-source work contributes to the richness of the ecosystem just like everything that came before it, empowering the next generation to continue the cycle going forward.

benologist 7y ago
Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source. Most people cannot convert their contributions into money as deftly as FAANG has converted 10,000s of people's contributions into a quarter trillion dollars. It does not fund the tools that power their current open source projects. It does not fund the tools their next open source projects will use. It does not fund the brilliance their next open source projects will iterate on. It does not fund the mistakes their next open source projects will know to avoid. They need all of that stuff before they have even a clue what to make next, and they need the open source community to try everything a hundred different ways to see which is good. We will still be arguing about this in twenty years as open source transitions into a mostly Indo-Chino-Russo-African dominated landscape because western developers can't afford to work on open source unless it's through their employing-FAANG company. Long before that all the current FAANG open source we're supposed to be grateful to receive instead of funding will be obsoleted and tossed aside because only a handful of ideas in it actually mattered after all.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source As I already stated, yes, it does fund open source. That's literally what they're doing: spending funds on developing and maintaining open source code. Did they fund every transient piece of software in the technology stack? Of course not. It does not fund the... Corporate money funds all of those things you listed. No, not every single package that becomes popular, but many of them, including many informed by practical knowledge acquired through battle-tested experience operating such software in their businesses. > western developers can't afford to work on open source unless it's at a FAANG company. So what? If western developers can't afford to work on open-source software they shouldn't. I wouldn't expect anyone to work for free if they couldn't afford to do so.
  - benologist 7y ago
    You mentioned the wealthiest 0.000001% of open source projects in a discussion about how the other 99.999999% need funding as some kind of proof FAANG are pulling their weight. Just their cash savings weigh about 2,500 tonnes so they're obviously not pulling their weight at all. The so-what is software development evolution comes to a grinding halt while we wait for third-world and developing countries to hit the sweet spot where people can afford to pursue their art and afford the tools and connectivity it requires and afford the many years of learning to understand the steps between hello world and inventing kubernetes. Google didn't even invent kubernetes as much as they extrapolated to it from experience and open source.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      They don't need funding. Most open-source software is redundant, low quality, or extremely niche. It's ok if some open source software is simply never written. I think it's fair for developers to charge (or otherwise monetize, including ads) for their software, even if they open-source it, but they don't "need" funding any more than any other arbitrary piece of software that someone somewhere thinks should exist. > software development evolution comes to a grinding halt What's wrong with this? If "software development evolution comes to a grinding halt" then it means we didn't need any more new software and existing solutions have solved all problems.

BeetleB 7y ago

>Why should the resources not come from the companies extracting the most cash value from open source? This is easy to answer: Because most/all those open source writers explicitly said it's OK for the users of their software not to provide them cash for it. If I openly say you can use my stuff for free, and then later come and say you are morally obligated to pay me because you made huge profit from my stuff, then my integrity is compromised. It's totally fine to say "I will no longer respond to support tickets for free", though.