3 ms·

Yeah. The scheme that was posited could potentially land us in a really perverse place. We'd be paying Apple way more than they put in because they don't use m

Yeah. The scheme that was posited could potentially land us in a really perverse place. We'd be paying Apple way more than they put in because they don't use much but they pour out projects that others use. My suspicion is that this probably works for some of the big companies, but for places like Apple, we don't want to get into this situation at all. This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway.

sokoloff 3y ago
> This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway. If Apple is a net creator of useful open-source software, I don't see this as much of a problem. If it results in a more viable/better open-source ecosystem overall, I'm more than happy to see all the large contributors to that benefit. (I'm ideologically for open-source software; I'm not ideologically anti-Apple/anti-company.)
mcny 3y ago
> This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway. A little off topic but this line of reasoning scares me. The end result of this kind of thought is "demonstrated need". I sincerely believe there should be an end to means-testing and anyone should be eligible for public benefits regardless of income or assets.