5 ms·

> most people won't pay for software if ... they don't have a vested interest in the project succeeding. Wouldn't you expect companies that rely on a given pro

> most people won't pay for software if ... they don't have a vested interest in the project succeeding. Wouldn't you expect companies that rely on a given project to have a vested interest in the project succeeding? I wouldn't choose to spend who-knows-how-many man hours on migrating to a new technology instead of paying a modest (for a business) fee for licensing something I rely on.

parl_match 2y ago
The whole reality is kind of rough, and it shouldn't be this way. Yes, but that is abstracted away easily as "someone else's problem". Mature organizations with SCA and policy around it will often do a library review that catches using less mature projects. This means that you get a bunch of small companies that can't/won't maintain or contribute back to the projects themselves, and few big companies using it who'd have the overhead to contribute back. In some cases, for popular and newer stuff, that means that when a vulnerability is found, you have hundreds of companies and projects downstream from the bad code. Meanwhile, the larger and more mature orgs flag it and deprecate or mitigate it (through various, expensive means like WAF/RASPs) And by then, it might even be completely unsupported, or worse, made breaking changes that strand many. Like a whalefall, it will feed hackers for a year.
bruce511 2y ago
I think the root of your mis-expectation is in thinking that companies behave like people. Your viewpoint is personal "I would do this" and for you it's easy, it's your money so you just write a check. Companies don't work like that. Firstly because individuals get budgets, and there's no point wasting limited resources on free stuff. Secondly because individuals are accountable. There are procurement processes, multiple-level sign-offs, justifications, invoices etc. In truth most OSS projects make it really hard to get "financial support". If you give away your product for free you make it almost impossible for a company to pay you. My advice: if you plan to write OSS for a living -start- by understanding how company purchasing and invoicing work. Get that part right -before- you even decide what to build.
- anaxamander 2y ago
  The miscommunication here is a question of scale. $40 a month doesn't put a dent in your budget when you're paying six figure labor costs at the same interval. That all being said, I have no intention of writing OSS for a living. I contribute to FOSS for fun only, and I set my own schedule outside my day job.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    $40 might be what the OSS developer wants. But the overhead in getting that $40 to them is immense. Even assuming I can "just spend" that, I need an invoice. It needs to be captured by accounts. I can be quized on it.
    - dagw 2y ago
      Yes, don't charge $40 if you are targeting large companies. For me as a project manager at Big Co, $40 and $400 is exactly the same, if I'm willing to pay one I'm willing to pay the other. What I care about is how friction free the process of paying you that money is. Also I would rather pay one company $1000/month than 5 companies $100/month for the same service. To be crass about it, it isn't my money, but it is my time.
- cycomanic 2y ago
  I find it interesting how in software we excuse behavior that would be completely unacceptable in most other settings, because "that's how companies operate". I have yet to hear of a McDonald's sending a truck to the nearest soup kitchen and loading all food into it, to sell at the restaurant, because companies "take maximum advantage of any free resource". Well they don't do it, because it's seen as unacceptable. Why do we see it as acceptable in OSS?
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Ar first glance it seems like a good analogy, but it breaks down quickly. Fundamentally the reason MD doesn't do that is because they don't have what MD want. Companies are more than willing to exploit free resources whenever it suits them to do so. Dumping pollutants in air and water springs to mind. Leveraging public infrastructure and so on. If my factory has a lot of trucks coming and going I don't "donate" extra money for road repair.

parl_match 2y ago

The whole reality is kind of rough, and it shouldn't be this way. Yes, but that is abstracted away easily as "someone else's problem". Mature organizations with SCA and policy around it will often do a library review that catches using less mature projects. This means that you get a bunch of small companies that can't/won't maintain or contribute back to the projects themselves, and few big companies using it who'd have the overhead to contribute back. In some cases, for popular and newer stuff, that means that when a vulnerability is found, you have hundreds of companies and projects downstream from the bad code. Meanwhile, the larger and more mature orgs flag it and deprecate or mitigate it (through various, expensive means like WAF/RASPs) And by then, it might even be completely unsupported, or worse, made breaking changes that strand many. Like a whalefall, it will feed hackers for a year.

bruce511 2y ago

I think the root of your mis-expectation is in thinking that companies behave like people. Your viewpoint is personal "I would do this" and for you it's easy, it's your money so you just write a check. Companies don't work like that. Firstly because individuals get budgets, and there's no point wasting limited resources on free stuff. Secondly because individuals are accountable. There are procurement processes, multiple-level sign-offs, justifications, invoices etc. In truth most OSS projects make it really hard to get "financial support". If you give away your product for free you make it almost impossible for a company to pay you. My advice: if you plan to write OSS for a living -start- by understanding how company purchasing and invoicing work. Get that part right -before- you even decide what to build.

anaxamander 2y ago
The miscommunication here is a question of scale. $40 a month doesn't put a dent in your budget when you're paying six figure labor costs at the same interval. That all being said, I have no intention of writing OSS for a living. I contribute to FOSS for fun only, and I set my own schedule outside my day job.
- bruce511 2y ago
  $40 might be what the OSS developer wants. But the overhead in getting that $40 to them is immense. Even assuming I can "just spend" that, I need an invoice. It needs to be captured by accounts. I can be quized on it.
  - dagw 2y ago
    Yes, don't charge $40 if you are targeting large companies. For me as a project manager at Big Co, $40 and $400 is exactly the same, if I'm willing to pay one I'm willing to pay the other. What I care about is how friction free the process of paying you that money is. Also I would rather pay one company $1000/month than 5 companies $100/month for the same service. To be crass about it, it isn't my money, but it is my time.
cycomanic 2y ago
I find it interesting how in software we excuse behavior that would be completely unacceptable in most other settings, because "that's how companies operate". I have yet to hear of a McDonald's sending a truck to the nearest soup kitchen and loading all food into it, to sell at the restaurant, because companies "take maximum advantage of any free resource". Well they don't do it, because it's seen as unacceptable. Why do we see it as acceptable in OSS?
- bruce511 2y ago
  Ar first glance it seems like a good analogy, but it breaks down quickly. Fundamentally the reason MD doesn't do that is because they don't have what MD want. Companies are more than willing to exploit free resources whenever it suits them to do so. Dumping pollutants in air and water springs to mind. Leveraging public infrastructure and so on. If my factory has a lot of trucks coming and going I don't "donate" extra money for road repair.