5 ms·

I worry that if the majority of open source contributors professionalize, then we're left with something that resembles top-down directed corporate work (and an

by jka 5y ago

I worry that if the majority of open source contributors professionalize, then we're left with something that resembles top-down directed corporate work (and an absence of a lot of the freedom that draws people towards developing free and open source software in the first place). Proprietary and corporate players are equally useless at securing their supply chains; I don't love that (from my perspective) they're now blaming and trying to coerce open source to become more like them to ostensibly fix the same problems they propagate themselves. I'm not a security nihilist: I think improvement is possible. But in my experience, not many corporate managers or project sponsors ask for removal of features and reduction of attack surface.

jka 5y ago
Anticipating a counter-argument: wouldn't individuals become the arbiters of the software functionality that is developed, if all open source software was based on a sponsor model? Isn't that more democratic? Perhaps; some financial statistics that I'd suggest to consider would be: - As of June 2018, U.S. households in the 0-40% income-level group had $0 median savings[1] - From the same source: the median savings for a household in the U.S. is approximately $11k. There are approximately 120m households in the U.S. according to the U.S. Government census[2]. - As of 2022, thirteen firms from within the S&P 500 hold a combined $1 trillion in cash-on-reserve[3] And yep, it'd be sensible to debate whether individuals or companies would be more likely to influence the direction of software; it's a disingenuous comparison to draw in that regard. But even if we consider only individual citizens, there would still be significant disenfranchisement in dollar-voting ability. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/heres-how-much-money-americans-have-in-savings-at-every-income-level.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/heres-how-much-money-america... [2] - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD410219 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD410219 [3] - https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-companies-stockpile-1-trillion-cash-investors-want-it/ https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-compa...

by jka 5y ago

jka 5y ago

Anticipating a counter-argument: wouldn't individuals become the arbiters of the software functionality that is developed, if all open source software was based on a sponsor model? Isn't that more democratic? Perhaps; some financial statistics that I'd suggest to consider would be: - As of June 2018, U.S. households in the 0-40% income-level group had $0 median savings[1] - From the same source: the median savings for a household in the U.S. is approximately $11k. There are approximately 120m households in the U.S. according to the U.S. Government census[2]. - As of 2022, thirteen firms from within the S&P 500 hold a combined $1 trillion in cash-on-reserve[3] And yep, it'd be sensible to debate whether individuals or companies would be more likely to influence the direction of software; it's a disingenuous comparison to draw in that regard. But even if we consider only individual citizens, there would still be significant disenfranchisement in dollar-voting ability. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/heres-how-much-money-americans-have-in-savings-at-every-income-level.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/heres-how-much-money-america... [2] - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD410219 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD410219 [3] - https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-companies-stockpile-1-trillion-cash-investors-want-it/ https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-compa...