2 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.