3 ms·

This is great. I really hope that efforts like this will spread around more. If smaller companies like Tarsnap can do it, then what stops others? > If you'r

This is great. I really hope that efforts like this will spread around more. If smaller companies like Tarsnap can do it, then what stops others? > If you're at a startup which relies heavily on open source software, please take a moment to ask yourself: How much does your company contribute back? And this deserves emphasizing.

yakubin 3y ago
> If smaller companies like Tarsnap can do it, then what stops others? Shareholders. Tarsnap enjoys the benefits of being a privately-owned company.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  I recognize that it's hard for a public company, but there are plenty of private companies that have plenty of cash and benefit from Open Source. Aside: I think for a public company it might even work well if ESG stared incorporating Open Source contributions.
  - whit537 3y ago
    Not a public company but Bloomberg's FOSS giving falls under their overall corporate philanthropy program, for example. They're involved in FOSSFunders.com behind the scenes but lots of bureaucracy to actually adding their logo.
  - peterhadlaw 3y ago
    I think for the public, might be better if we stopped incorporating ESG in gnereal.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 3y ago
  In practice I doubt this is much of a barrier. Shareholders don't inspect every line item of a company's budget. For a decent-sized company, a few hundred thousand or even a million or so $$ per year would probably go more or less unnoticed by shareholders. Remember that it's a common -- incorrect -- trope that public companies are legally required to seek maximum profit, etc. It's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.
  - yakubin 3y ago
    The post says that all of December operating profits are donated. I don’t think such an amount could go unnoticed in a public company.
    - sgjohnson 3y ago
      > I don’t think such an amount could go unnoticed in a public company. It would not go unnoticed, but say if the CEO is >50% shareholder, he could just say “if you don’t like the way I run the company, sell the stock”.
elric 3y ago
Quite a few years ago, Gabriel Weinberg from DuckDuckGo launched a "FOSS Tithe" website which encouraged companies to donate some percentage of their profits to the FOSS projects they rely on. I've tried to encourage my former employers to do this when possible, or to pay people to contribute features to FOSS tools we were using. With varying degrees of success. Now that I'm self-employed again, I can simply donate some of my profits, and am more able to contribute patches. Sponsoring contributors to build features for your org is probably the best way to go. Your org will get an invoice, you'll get a feature. The project will be happy, and the developer will be happy.
- whit537 3y ago
  > FOSS Tithe TIL, thanks! Found this: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2227761/a-tithe-for-open-source--forever-young.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2227761/a-tithe-for-ope.... Looks like the original blog post is gone. Wonder if Gabe wants to revisit. :thinking:
  - whit537 3y ago
    A couple other refs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1890574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1890574 https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/11/15/120320/should-companies-that-use-open-source-software-pay-a-tithe/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/11/15/120320/should-co... I don't find the original in archive.org or archive.is. :-/
bluGill 3y ago
Large companies regularly give a lot to various charities. Open source is just another.
- alganet 3y ago
  Supporting open source is not charity.
  - tux1968 3y ago
    Is it really that black-and-white? It certainly has at least some characteristics of charity, such as being non-compulsory, and often done out of a sense of goodwill.
    - ZiiS 3y ago
      From a corporate point of view it is often black and white based on the tax classification of the recipient.
      - streety 3y ago
        That might be an issue for smaller projects but at larger scales there is often an associated charity. For example https://apache.org/ https://apache.org/ and https://numfocus.org/community/mission https://numfocus.org/community/mission are both 501(c)(3) registered charitable organizations.
    - cperciva 3y ago
      In the sense of being "charitable", sure; but the legal sense of being "a charity" is quite a different matter. I record most of this as "sponsorship" and get Tarsnap's logo put in various places; if the Canada Revenue Agency asks any questions I can absolutely point to evidence that this brings in customers to justify it as a business expense.
    - alganet 3y ago
      To me it is more similar to giving money to a busker. The busker is there doing his thing, he's not asking for money to play. He's working though, and payment acknowledges the value of his work. Charity, on the other hand, is supposed to expect no work in return. You help people whether they did some work or not. The fact that the OSS dev didn't charge for the software in the first place doesn't mean paying him for that software is charity. It's acknowledgement, and a possible investment if you depend on the software he provides.

yakubin 3y ago

> If smaller companies like Tarsnap can do it, then what stops others? Shareholders. Tarsnap enjoys the benefits of being a privately-owned company.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
I recognize that it's hard for a public company, but there are plenty of private companies that have plenty of cash and benefit from Open Source. Aside: I think for a public company it might even work well if ESG stared incorporating Open Source contributions.
- whit537 3y ago
  Not a public company but Bloomberg's FOSS giving falls under their overall corporate philanthropy program, for example. They're involved in FOSSFunders.com behind the scenes but lots of bureaucracy to actually adding their logo.
- peterhadlaw 3y ago
  I think for the public, might be better if we stopped incorporating ESG in gnereal.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 3y ago
In practice I doubt this is much of a barrier. Shareholders don't inspect every line item of a company's budget. For a decent-sized company, a few hundred thousand or even a million or so $$ per year would probably go more or less unnoticed by shareholders. Remember that it's a common -- incorrect -- trope that public companies are legally required to seek maximum profit, etc. It's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.
- yakubin 3y ago
  The post says that all of December operating profits are donated. I don’t think such an amount could go unnoticed in a public company.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    > I don’t think such an amount could go unnoticed in a public company. It would not go unnoticed, but say if the CEO is >50% shareholder, he could just say “if you don’t like the way I run the company, sell the stock”.

elric 3y ago

Quite a few years ago, Gabriel Weinberg from DuckDuckGo launched a "FOSS Tithe" website which encouraged companies to donate some percentage of their profits to the FOSS projects they rely on. I've tried to encourage my former employers to do this when possible, or to pay people to contribute features to FOSS tools we were using. With varying degrees of success. Now that I'm self-employed again, I can simply donate some of my profits, and am more able to contribute patches. Sponsoring contributors to build features for your org is probably the best way to go. Your org will get an invoice, you'll get a feature. The project will be happy, and the developer will be happy.

whit537 3y ago
> FOSS Tithe TIL, thanks! Found this: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2227761/a-tithe-for-open-source--forever-young.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2227761/a-tithe-for-ope.... Looks like the original blog post is gone. Wonder if Gabe wants to revisit. :thinking:
- whit537 3y ago
  A couple other refs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1890574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1890574 https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/11/15/120320/should-companies-that-use-open-source-software-pay-a-tithe/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/11/15/120320/should-co... I don't find the original in archive.org or archive.is. :-/

bluGill 3y ago

Large companies regularly give a lot to various charities. Open source is just another.

alganet 3y ago
Supporting open source is not charity.
- tux1968 3y ago
  Is it really that black-and-white? It certainly has at least some characteristics of charity, such as being non-compulsory, and often done out of a sense of goodwill.
  - ZiiS 3y ago
    From a corporate point of view it is often black and white based on the tax classification of the recipient.
    - streety 3y ago
      That might be an issue for smaller projects but at larger scales there is often an associated charity. For example https://apache.org/ https://apache.org/ and https://numfocus.org/community/mission https://numfocus.org/community/mission are both 501(c)(3) registered charitable organizations.
  - cperciva 3y ago
    In the sense of being "charitable", sure; but the legal sense of being "a charity" is quite a different matter. I record most of this as "sponsorship" and get Tarsnap's logo put in various places; if the Canada Revenue Agency asks any questions I can absolutely point to evidence that this brings in customers to justify it as a business expense.
  - alganet 3y ago
    To me it is more similar to giving money to a busker. The busker is there doing his thing, he's not asking for money to play. He's working though, and payment acknowledges the value of his work. Charity, on the other hand, is supposed to expect no work in return. You help people whether they did some work or not. The fact that the OSS dev didn't charge for the software in the first place doesn't mean paying him for that software is charity. It's acknowledgement, and a possible investment if you depend on the software he provides.