4 ms·

https://my.fsf.org/donate/ https://my.fsf.org/donate/ https://sfconservancy.org/donate/ https://sfconservancy.org/donate/ https://www.apache.org/foundation/co

https://my.fsf.org/donate/ https://my.fsf.org/donate/ https://sfconservancy.org/donate/ https://sfconservancy.org/donate/ https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html https://opensource.org/donate https://opensource.org/donate https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/donate/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/donate/

anigbrowl 7y ago
The FSF's total assets are less than $2m. Apache's under $5m. I mean something with billion $ capitalization instead of peanuts.
- mikeg8 7y ago
  Probably because the players who can amass a billion $ fund would rather put their money somewhere else. You're basically asking why is capitalism capitalism?
- fierarul 7y ago
  I assume you are aware Apache does not pay for any kind of software development. They only spend money on some minor infrastructure to have JIRA and the mailing lists and build servers running; plus administrative / legal personnel. All the new "Apache" software is written by volunteers, the mirror system is provided free by 3rd parties, code hosting is almost all on GitHub. So, what would they need the extra money for? Another JIRA instance? By comparison the FreeBSD foundation does hand out grants to fix parts of their OS which they deem relevant and in need. Would be nice to see something similar in other foundations.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    I'm responding to the person who cited it above. Please try reading the whole thread instead of just the last post.
    - fierarul 7y ago
      An open source foundations with billions does not exist, except Mozilla Foundation but they don't really spread out the money to other projects compared to what they spend on their own products. So, the answer is that nothing exist. Out of the given options a few also don't qualify (like I mentioned, Apache for sure, opensource.org most likely) because they don't spend money on software development at all.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        The original comment of mine that started this thread: Why isn't there a public open-source fund [...] I know it doesn't exist. The non-existence thereof was what prompted that question. I have no idea what point you're attempting to make.
        fierarul 7y ago
        Clearly you are smart enough to realise what point I was trying to make, although it was perhaps tangential to your original question. I do apologise for replying to you. If only HN would have a feature to block me from replying to you in the future.
fsflover 7y ago
https://opencollective.com/ https://opencollective.com/

anigbrowl 7y ago

The FSF's total assets are less than $2m. Apache's under $5m. I mean something with billion $ capitalization instead of peanuts.

mikeg8 7y ago
Probably because the players who can amass a billion $ fund would rather put their money somewhere else. You're basically asking why is capitalism capitalism?
fierarul 7y ago
I assume you are aware Apache does not pay for any kind of software development. They only spend money on some minor infrastructure to have JIRA and the mailing lists and build servers running; plus administrative / legal personnel. All the new "Apache" software is written by volunteers, the mirror system is provided free by 3rd parties, code hosting is almost all on GitHub. So, what would they need the extra money for? Another JIRA instance? By comparison the FreeBSD foundation does hand out grants to fix parts of their OS which they deem relevant and in need. Would be nice to see something similar in other foundations.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  I'm responding to the person who cited it above. Please try reading the whole thread instead of just the last post.
  - fierarul 7y ago
    An open source foundations with billions does not exist, except Mozilla Foundation but they don't really spread out the money to other projects compared to what they spend on their own products. So, the answer is that nothing exist. Out of the given options a few also don't qualify (like I mentioned, Apache for sure, opensource.org most likely) because they don't spend money on software development at all.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      The original comment of mine that started this thread: Why isn't there a public open-source fund [...] I know it doesn't exist. The non-existence thereof was what prompted that question. I have no idea what point you're attempting to make.
      - fierarul 7y ago
        Clearly you are smart enough to realise what point I was trying to make, although it was perhaps tangential to your original question. I do apologise for replying to you. If only HN would have a feature to block me from replying to you in the future.

fsflover 7y ago

https://opencollective.com/ https://opencollective.com/