4 ms·

Depends on what you mean by contribute. If you contribute by hiring the maintainer to do maintainer work then that falls in the great company category. If you c

by zaphar 5y ago

Depends on what you mean by contribute. If you contribute by hiring the maintainer to do maintainer work then that falls in the great company category. If you contribute by just shoveling a bunch of patches at already overworked maintainers then not so much.

allset_ 5y ago
I see it the opposite way. If a company hires a core maintainer (often the only maintainer), they have huge amounts of power over the direction of the project as they can threaten to fire the maintainer who is now dependent on the company for income. Contributing improvements externally allows the project to remain independent. And if the maintainer is overburdened they can decline the patches or postpone review. Nobody is forcing them to accept the changes.
- asiachick 5y ago
  Do you any evidence this is is common? Plenty of heads of open source projects are hired by large companies. I've seen zero evidence of them not remaining independent but maybe I'm just unaware of those cases.
  - simonw 5y ago
    Gave you really seen that happen a lot? I can't think of many examples off the top of my head of open source project heads being hired by a company and given free reign to continue working exclusively on their project. I don't know how you would see the evidence of the company imposing their will on the project - that's not likely to happen in public. It's also very likely to happen without any explicit influence taking place at all. If a company hired me to work full-time on one of my projects, and I had to pick between two competing priorities for my time, I would naturally take my employer's own preferences and current challenges into account when making that decision. I wouldn't even consider that to be a bad thing.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      It doesn't have to be full-time. The maintainer can be hired as a part-time contractor, or even consultant, and the contract can be specific to the project in question. The problem with money translating to power is not unique to this arrangement, in any case. Donations can be similarly withdrawn, after all, so they also create an implicit bias. The only way to fix this is to make it so that people don't have to rely on such sources of income to sustain themselves.
goodpoint 5y ago
> If you contribute by hiring the maintainer to do maintainer work then that falls in the great company category. No. This allows companies to seize control of FOSS projects. FLOSS is used by everybody and should not be driven a single corporation. Just like cities vs company town.
- zaphar 5y ago
  If money is donated you can bet that the giver will have some input on the work. It's human nature. If you want FOSS maintainers to be paid a living wage the likely outcome is that some percentage of the givers will have sway or defacto control of the project. At least employing the Maintainer makes that plainly visible instead of hidden behind a screen of deniability. Besides because of the license FLOSS has a built in escape hatch if you don't like the direction a corporation is going. I recognize your concern I just think the risk is far lower than you do.

by zaphar 5y ago

allset_ 5y ago

I see it the opposite way. If a company hires a core maintainer (often the only maintainer), they have huge amounts of power over the direction of the project as they can threaten to fire the maintainer who is now dependent on the company for income. Contributing improvements externally allows the project to remain independent. And if the maintainer is overburdened they can decline the patches or postpone review. Nobody is forcing them to accept the changes.

asiachick 5y ago
Do you any evidence this is is common? Plenty of heads of open source projects are hired by large companies. I've seen zero evidence of them not remaining independent but maybe I'm just unaware of those cases.
- simonw 5y ago
  Gave you really seen that happen a lot? I can't think of many examples off the top of my head of open source project heads being hired by a company and given free reign to continue working exclusively on their project. I don't know how you would see the evidence of the company imposing their will on the project - that's not likely to happen in public. It's also very likely to happen without any explicit influence taking place at all. If a company hired me to work full-time on one of my projects, and I had to pick between two competing priorities for my time, I would naturally take my employer's own preferences and current challenges into account when making that decision. I wouldn't even consider that to be a bad thing.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be full-time. The maintainer can be hired as a part-time contractor, or even consultant, and the contract can be specific to the project in question. The problem with money translating to power is not unique to this arrangement, in any case. Donations can be similarly withdrawn, after all, so they also create an implicit bias. The only way to fix this is to make it so that people don't have to rely on such sources of income to sustain themselves.

goodpoint 5y ago

> If you contribute by hiring the maintainer to do maintainer work then that falls in the great company category. No. This allows companies to seize control of FOSS projects. FLOSS is used by everybody and should not be driven a single corporation. Just like cities vs company town.

zaphar 5y ago
If money is donated you can bet that the giver will have some input on the work. It's human nature. If you want FOSS maintainers to be paid a living wage the likely outcome is that some percentage of the givers will have sway or defacto control of the project. At least employing the Maintainer makes that plainly visible instead of hidden behind a screen of deniability. Besides because of the license FLOSS has a built in escape hatch if you don't like the direction a corporation is going. I recognize your concern I just think the risk is far lower than you do.