3 ms·

> I'd estimate that at least 99.9% of open source software is written by people without direct payment If we include all software released under an Open Source

> I'd estimate that at least 99.9% of open source software is written by people without direct payment If we include all software released under an Open Source licence, I imagine that's true, but it will include millions of trivial GitHub projects that don't really matter. It may be that only 0.1% of FOSS development is paid, going by lines-of-code, but far more than 0.1% of the value of FOSS is done by paid developers. Plenty of paid Linux kernel devs, for instance.

onion2k 6y ago
Plenty of paid Linux kernel devs, for instance. There's loads who work on the kernel as part of their job, but that's no different to any other dev job. I think the question "how do I get paid to work on open source?" is subtly but very importantly different to "how do I get a job that includes working on open source?". The former implies the person asking wants to get paid directly to work on an open project in their own right rather than being part of a company's team of contributors. That might not be the case here but it's how I've interpreted it, because "how do I get a job at a company that contributors to open source?" isn't very interesting. You find an opening at a company that works on open projects and apply for it.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > There's loads who work on the kernel as part of their job, but that's no different to any other dev job. What's the problem with that? It's win-win that this arrangement is relatively common. > I think the question "how do I get paid to work on open source?" is subtly but very importantly different to "how do I get a job that includes working on open source?". The former implies the person asking wants to get paid directly to work on an open project in their own right rather than being part of a company's team of contributors. You're right to point out the distinction, but I don't think how do I get paid to work on open source should necessarily be taken to have that meaning.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    The problem is, for the most part, that the dev will only get paid to work on aspects that advances the employing corporation's interests. It really is just a job.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      > It really is just a job. I'm not seeing the problem with that. You'll never have full freedom to work on whatever you like and get paid for it. Seems to me the salaried job approach will give the developer less freedom compared to the patronage model, as you say, but it also has advantages. It introduces corporate/organisational resources, so you won't have to personally fund your test server, and hopefully there will be competent management, etc. In practice I imagine it means better job security too, and at the risk of being circular, it's just more likely to happen and to pay you properly. > the dev will only get paid to work on aspects that advances the employing corporation's interests True, but compared to the work just never happening, that's still a good thing. If you instead rely on patrons, you're still beholden to someone else's interests. This takes us back to my first point: you can never have total freedom to work on what you want, and get paid for it.

onion2k 6y ago

Plenty of paid Linux kernel devs, for instance. There's loads who work on the kernel as part of their job, but that's no different to any other dev job. I think the question "how do I get paid to work on open source?" is subtly but very importantly different to "how do I get a job that includes working on open source?". The former implies the person asking wants to get paid directly to work on an open project in their own right rather than being part of a company's team of contributors. That might not be the case here but it's how I've interpreted it, because "how do I get a job at a company that contributors to open source?" isn't very interesting. You find an opening at a company that works on open projects and apply for it.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> There's loads who work on the kernel as part of their job, but that's no different to any other dev job. What's the problem with that? It's win-win that this arrangement is relatively common. > I think the question "how do I get paid to work on open source?" is subtly but very importantly different to "how do I get a job that includes working on open source?". The former implies the person asking wants to get paid directly to work on an open project in their own right rather than being part of a company's team of contributors. You're right to point out the distinction, but I don't think how do I get paid to work on open source should necessarily be taken to have that meaning.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  The problem is, for the most part, that the dev will only get paid to work on aspects that advances the employing corporation's interests. It really is just a job.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > It really is just a job. I'm not seeing the problem with that. You'll never have full freedom to work on whatever you like and get paid for it. Seems to me the salaried job approach will give the developer less freedom compared to the patronage model, as you say, but it also has advantages. It introduces corporate/organisational resources, so you won't have to personally fund your test server, and hopefully there will be competent management, etc. In practice I imagine it means better job security too, and at the risk of being circular, it's just more likely to happen and to pay you properly. > the dev will only get paid to work on aspects that advances the employing corporation's interests True, but compared to the work just never happening, that's still a good thing. If you instead rely on patrons, you're still beholden to someone else's interests. This takes us back to my first point: you can never have total freedom to work on what you want, and get paid for it.