4 ms·

Okay, does anyone else have the unfortunate problem of automatic numeracy? After a lot of physics tests, basically comparing numbers and subtracting exponents

by drostie 15y ago

Okay, does anyone else have the unfortunate problem of automatic numeracy? After a lot of physics tests, basically comparing numbers and subtracting exponents is something I do almost automatically. Like, I enjoy that they're donating at all, and I know that their staff often contribute in the form of patches and commits -- really one of the key ways contributions should go -- but somehow the numbers seemed a little dramatically understated. They're literally saying, "Free software made us billionaires, so we're paying them a 0.01% commission." It just sounds like, "I earned $4 000 from homeless people and then gave four of them each a dime." I mean, I'm sure you made their lives better and helped them to help you, but still, the gap between the numbers is a little startling. ^_^

jasonlotito 15y ago
Your ignoring the fact that the homeless people are no longer homeless and able to support themselves now.
- sciurus 15y ago
  I assume you meant to highlight that Red Hat pays a lot of developers to work on open source projects. I don't think that came across clearly, which is probably why you're being downvoted.
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    And not just that. Not only are they paying developers to work on these projects, but that in turn contributes directly back to the projects both code and attention. To continue with the homeless analogy, Red Hat helped a bunch of "homeless" people, and continue to do so today, but are not going the extra step of helping other people help homeless people.
pornel 15y ago
Those numbers aren't comparable. While FOSS was a key component that allowed Red Hat to make those profits, it wasn't the only one. It wouldn't happen without RH's employees, expertise, marketing/brand, etc. It's not like RH took the enormous value of FOSS and given only little of it back. They took that value and created even more value on top of that.
NickPollard 15y ago
You make a good point. However, it is $1billion in revenue, not profit - after you take all their costs out, it probably ends up being a higher percentage (though still a small one).
schraeds 15y ago
$1B - liabilities and other business considerations. $100k in cold hard cash as a good will gesture (in addition to the code contributions, and validation of open source as a business model) and it's not enough. Is this the kind of additude and graditude we want to show? Unbelievable.
jlarocco 15y ago
I guess there's just no pleasing some people. RedHat aren't obligated to donate anything to anybody. They could even take the Apple KHTML/Webkit approach and make it difficult to incorporate their code changes back into the original code bases. If anybody releasing open source code feels cheated by this it's their own fault for choosing to release code using an open source license.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I'm generally supportive of RedHat, and think they do pretty well by the open-source community. But I don't agree with the latter part of your comment on principle: not everything that is legal is a good idea or something we should cheer. I think there is a general ethical requirement to give something back to people who got you where you are, even if you aren't legally obligated to do so. (And RedHat does in fact do so.) Things actually work better in the case where there's an ethical but not legally codified understanding, imo, enforced informally through community pressure rather than lawsuits. If you try to add it into legal obligations, complex licenses start piling up; the old BSD advertising clause, for example, was an attempt to turn the ethical principle of "you should prominently acknowledge the work you built on" into a legally enforceable license, which in retrospect most people agree was misguided. But you should still prominently acknowledge the work you built on, anyway, and it's fair to call people out on it if they aren't giving sufficient credit. You can't sue people who don't give sufficient credit (past the bare minimum copyright statement), but you can criticize them and apply community pressure.
- drostie 15y ago
  I tried to be clear in my original comment that I'm not displeased with this action of Red Hat, and that I view it as an issue with myself that I do these strange numeric comparisons. I certainly don't blame Red Hat and I was very careful to avoid saying that Red Hat was obligated to donate anything to anyone, since I agree with you that they are not. Obviously my intent was not well-communicated in my comment. I apologize, but I don't really know how to make it better. :-( With all that said, those words still ring a bit hollow for me. If the person giving dimes to the homeless were to say, "hey, I wasn't obligated to donate anything to them," that still doesn't quite ameliorate the sheer numerical discrepancy, which is still the point where my brain goes, "wait... what?" Another comment did: it said, "oh, they're just talking about revenues, not profits." That's a much more important distinction. If Red Hat's costs are very high, then it might not be four dimes but four $100 bills. That's a much more substantial donation given what you got.

by drostie 15y ago

jasonlotito 15y ago

Your ignoring the fact that the homeless people are no longer homeless and able to support themselves now.

sciurus 15y ago
I assume you meant to highlight that Red Hat pays a lot of developers to work on open source projects. I don't think that came across clearly, which is probably why you're being downvoted.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  And not just that. Not only are they paying developers to work on these projects, but that in turn contributes directly back to the projects both code and attention. To continue with the homeless analogy, Red Hat helped a bunch of "homeless" people, and continue to do so today, but are not going the extra step of helping other people help homeless people.

pornel 15y ago

Those numbers aren't comparable. While FOSS was a key component that allowed Red Hat to make those profits, it wasn't the only one. It wouldn't happen without RH's employees, expertise, marketing/brand, etc. It's not like RH took the enormous value of FOSS and given only little of it back. They took that value and created even more value on top of that.

NickPollard 15y ago

You make a good point. However, it is $1billion in revenue, not profit - after you take all their costs out, it probably ends up being a higher percentage (though still a small one).

schraeds 15y ago

$1B - liabilities and other business considerations. $100k in cold hard cash as a good will gesture (in addition to the code contributions, and validation of open source as a business model) and it's not enough. Is this the kind of additude and graditude we want to show? Unbelievable.

jlarocco 15y ago

I guess there's just no pleasing some people. RedHat aren't obligated to donate anything to anybody. They could even take the Apple KHTML/Webkit approach and make it difficult to incorporate their code changes back into the original code bases. If anybody releasing open source code feels cheated by this it's their own fault for choosing to release code using an open source license.

_delirium 15y ago
I'm generally supportive of RedHat, and think they do pretty well by the open-source community. But I don't agree with the latter part of your comment on principle: not everything that is legal is a good idea or something we should cheer. I think there is a general ethical requirement to give something back to people who got you where you are, even if you aren't legally obligated to do so. (And RedHat does in fact do so.) Things actually work better in the case where there's an ethical but not legally codified understanding, imo, enforced informally through community pressure rather than lawsuits. If you try to add it into legal obligations, complex licenses start piling up; the old BSD advertising clause, for example, was an attempt to turn the ethical principle of "you should prominently acknowledge the work you built on" into a legally enforceable license, which in retrospect most people agree was misguided. But you should still prominently acknowledge the work you built on, anyway, and it's fair to call people out on it if they aren't giving sufficient credit. You can't sue people who don't give sufficient credit (past the bare minimum copyright statement), but you can criticize them and apply community pressure.
drostie 15y ago
I tried to be clear in my original comment that I'm not displeased with this action of Red Hat, and that I view it as an issue with myself that I do these strange numeric comparisons. I certainly don't blame Red Hat and I was very careful to avoid saying that Red Hat was obligated to donate anything to anyone, since I agree with you that they are not. Obviously my intent was not well-communicated in my comment. I apologize, but I don't really know how to make it better. :-( With all that said, those words still ring a bit hollow for me. If the person giving dimes to the homeless were to say, "hey, I wasn't obligated to donate anything to them," that still doesn't quite ameliorate the sheer numerical discrepancy, which is still the point where my brain goes, "wait... what?" Another comment did: it said, "oh, they're just talking about revenues, not profits." That's a much more important distinction. If Red Hat's costs are very high, then it might not be four dimes but four $100 bills. That's a much more substantial donation given what you got.