3 ms·

They make donations. But they don't donate 10% of their yearly revenue, even though their business often completely depends on FOSS software.

• axod 16y ago
  A company on the stock market owes it to investors to make them a return. Donating 10% of revenue away, wouldn't go down too well with average Joes pension scheme. Also I'm not sure any big company 'completely depends' on FOSS. Yes it's an awesome thing, but big companies would survive just fine without it.
  • bricestacey 16y ago
    > Also I'm not sure any big company 'completely depends' on FOSS. Yes it's an awesome thing, but big companies would survive just fine without it The cost of non-FOSS is often a barrier to entry. I'd wager most companies would never exist without FOSS providing the initial setup. This is an assumption, but take DDG as an example with $20,000 in revenues. If they licensed all their servers from Microsoft, they might easily be in the red from that investment alone.
  • pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >Donating 10% of revenue away, wouldn't go down too well with average Joes pension scheme. Presumably then "average Joes pension scheme" can go elsewhere to try and achieve a better return. What you're saying is that companies can't be generous because they have to satisfy the lust of the owners for more and more money. Basically some are happy to ride on the coattails of others who more than likely see the innate Kantian imperative in aiding FOSS that has benefited them (and hence their dependents) in no small part. If no one gives anything (time/money/resources) to FOSS then it will die out. 10% of revenue may well be too much but some reflection of the saving made (if any) would seem reasonable and likely to produce future benefits.
• jrwoodruff 16y ago
  DDG did say that after 2011 it would be 10% of income rather than revenue. I assume that's because at this point they are barely breaking even...