3 ms·

Disclaimer: I work at a Fraunhofer institute, though not Fraunhofer HHI, which developed this codec, and I have no intimate knowledge on the financing of that i

Disclaimer: I work at a Fraunhofer institute, though not Fraunhofer HHI, which developed this codec, and I have no intimate knowledge on the financing of that institute or this project in particular. But some basic principles apply to all institutes the same. Fraunhofer gets roughly 30% of its funding from public sources, the remainder is raised on a per-project basis. It's a fair assumption that those industry partners provided some funds towards the development here. Maybe they even covered all the payroll costs for the involved scientists for the duration of the project. And yet more income means more money for other research projects. Maybe ones that are not as commercially interesting, or for which a partner decides to terminate a contract rather unexpectedly. While I am also a fan of OSS and would love for work like this to either have no patents or a liberal patent grant, I can also appreciate the desire to fund your research institute.

epanchin 6y ago
Public sources as in the taxpayer? Why would the taxpayer fund anything that isn’t open and free. Crazy.
- Cu3PO42 6y ago
  Yes, public sources as in the tax payer. It is worth pointing out that Fraunhofer is itself a non-profit organization. The argument that anything funded by tax money must be open is a very fair stance. Though the line gets very blurry when you mix various sources of funding like this. To the best of my recollection I have yet to be paid from any public funding (rather than project specific funding raised from the industry, for example). Personally, I have no qualms with the funding model, but other points of view are presumably equally valid.
  - osrec 6y ago
    Unfortunately, non-profit does not necessarily mean that someone in the organisation isn't amply lining their pockets.
    - Cu3PO42 6y ago
      You're right, but I'm not aware of any egregious salaries or bonuses. Both the president and all the chairmen are all professors, which generally means they are paid by their University, not Fraunhofer. The same applies to many directors of the individual institutes. The salaries for employees are based on "Tarifvertrag öffentlicher Dienst" ("labor agreement for public service",). Unless there's straight up fraud somewhere, there shouldn't be too much lining of pockets.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- legulere 6y ago
  Public transport also is just subsidized and not free.

epanchin 6y ago

Public sources as in the taxpayer? Why would the taxpayer fund anything that isn’t open and free. Crazy.

Cu3PO42 6y ago
Yes, public sources as in the tax payer. It is worth pointing out that Fraunhofer is itself a non-profit organization. The argument that anything funded by tax money must be open is a very fair stance. Though the line gets very blurry when you mix various sources of funding like this. To the best of my recollection I have yet to be paid from any public funding (rather than project specific funding raised from the industry, for example). Personally, I have no qualms with the funding model, but other points of view are presumably equally valid.
- osrec 6y ago
  Unfortunately, non-profit does not necessarily mean that someone in the organisation isn't amply lining their pockets.
  - Cu3PO42 6y ago
    You're right, but I'm not aware of any egregious salaries or bonuses. Both the president and all the chairmen are all professors, which generally means they are paid by their University, not Fraunhofer. The same applies to many directors of the individual institutes. The salaries for employees are based on "Tarifvertrag öffentlicher Dienst" ("labor agreement for public service",). Unless there's straight up fraud somewhere, there shouldn't be too much lining of pockets.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
legulere 6y ago
Public transport also is just subsidized and not free.