3 ms·

It's not unfortunate at all. Every company I've worked for has been an unbelievable freeloader on open source projects. Tens of billions of dollars in revenue,

It's not unfortunate at all. Every company I've worked for has been an unbelievable freeloader on open source projects. Tens of billions of dollars in revenue, almost nothing to the projects they rely on. I think the open source experiment has failed and that we need to embrace moving toward a compensated-commercial source model. Companies are strongly opposed to this because they can't freeload on volunteer work and other companies anymore, but it should be done.

behnamoh 3y ago
> I think the open source experiment has failed imo it still serves as a way to strengthen resumes of job applicants. Just have a few GH projects with decent "stars" to show you know how to build things. I don't endorse it (because the projects then often get abandoned after employment)—maybe it'd be better to have a "badge" on the GH page showing what the purpose of the project really is.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  thats not the open source experiment, that's just employers getting comfortable with expecting uncompensated labor in the recruiting process
jltsiren 3y ago
Open source has not failed. Attempts to build viable business models around it may have. That's not a weakness of open source but a weakness of software business. When you have a product with very low marginal cost of production, the market price for the product often tends towards $0. If you have a business that sells software licenses and someone develops a viable alternative (for whatever reason) and starts distributing it for free, you may have a hard time competing against them. And if the free alternative gains enough market share, both parties may find it difficult to pay for continued development. That's just how the market works.
- foobiekr 3y ago
  As a movement. People have to eat.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    People eating is not a software problem, it's a capitalism problem. Code just sits on a server, and in 99% of circumstances the costs of retrieving or modifying it is negligible enough to copy it. What you're describing is where the interests of commercial users and free contributors diverge. When that doesn't align, commercial users have to tow the line. If they can't make that work, that's not Open Source's fault.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    There was never any centralized open source movement. Just a bunch of people making open source software for various reasons. Some joined related communities, while many didn't. Some got paid, while many didn't. Some did it as a hobby, while many didn't. Software is essentially worthless once it exists. Even if many people and many businesses rely on it, there may not be any economic value in maintaining it. If you need to get paid, you may have to do something else for living.

behnamoh 3y ago

> I think the open source experiment has failed imo it still serves as a way to strengthen resumes of job applicants. Just have a few GH projects with decent "stars" to show you know how to build things. I don't endorse it (because the projects then often get abandoned after employment)—maybe it'd be better to have a "badge" on the GH page showing what the purpose of the project really is.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
thats not the open source experiment, that's just employers getting comfortable with expecting uncompensated labor in the recruiting process

jltsiren 3y ago

Open source has not failed. Attempts to build viable business models around it may have. That's not a weakness of open source but a weakness of software business. When you have a product with very low marginal cost of production, the market price for the product often tends towards $0. If you have a business that sells software licenses and someone develops a viable alternative (for whatever reason) and starts distributing it for free, you may have a hard time competing against them. And if the free alternative gains enough market share, both parties may find it difficult to pay for continued development. That's just how the market works.

foobiekr 3y ago
As a movement. People have to eat.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  People eating is not a software problem, it's a capitalism problem. Code just sits on a server, and in 99% of circumstances the costs of retrieving or modifying it is negligible enough to copy it. What you're describing is where the interests of commercial users and free contributors diverge. When that doesn't align, commercial users have to tow the line. If they can't make that work, that's not Open Source's fault.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  There was never any centralized open source movement. Just a bunch of people making open source software for various reasons. Some joined related communities, while many didn't. Some got paid, while many didn't. Some did it as a hobby, while many didn't. Software is essentially worthless once it exists. Even if many people and many businesses rely on it, there may not be any economic value in maintaining it. If you need to get paid, you may have to do something else for living.