3 ms·
> If smaller companies like Tarsnap can do it, then what stops others? Shareholders. Tarsnap enjoys the benefits of being a privately-owned company.
by 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 agoI 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 agoNot 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 agoI think for the public, might be better if we stopped incorporating ESG in gnereal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kelnos 3y agoIn 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 agoThe 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”.