This presents sponsorship of OSS in strictly economic terms as a trade-of. That’s unlikely to be a successful argument for more sponsorship, because it puts it

This presents sponsorship of OSS in strictly economic terms as a trade-of. That’s unlikely to be a successful argument for more sponsorship, because it puts it squarely in tragedy-of-the-commons territory: unless you’re the largest consumer of some upstream project, it’s better to hope for others to support it. It’s also descriptively wrong when it frames sponsorship decisions in such supposedly-rational economic terms: while corporations are in theory seeking only shareholder value, corporations happen to be (made up of) people, who are capable of altruism, and should be encouraged to do so. Just because US capitalism has managed to build a not-entirely-failing system on unadulterated selfishness does not turn that mindset into a virtue, or anything close to the far more complex set of motivations driving individual action. Practically speaking, many corporations sponsor OSS, and the whole reasoning behind it is often that some person with a bit of authority likes the idea. They may consider it good for marketing, or recruitment, or to secure their supply chain, or just morally called for, or they want to be the fat cat at this years TINYTEC-CON. If you asked them, they’ll give you a reason that totally makes sense for a business and has little to do with reality. And, no, nobody ever got sued or fired for these decisions. So go ahead, do it! You got all the left-padding you needed, it’s right to pad their wallet in return.