5 ms·

This would be nice, but since it hasn’t happened so far, hard to see why it would start happening. No idea what the future will look like in general in 5, 10,

This would be nice, but since it hasn’t happened so far, hard to see why it would start happening. No idea what the future will look like in general in 5, 10, or 20 years but I am reasonably confident that donations to OSS won’t be drastically more than they are now.

squigz 2y ago
Terrible reason to believe something won't happen.
- phendrenad2 2y ago
  Actually no, historical data is the best indicator of future probability.
- jaredklewis 2y ago
  Fair enough, but having worked inside a lot of tech companies I think I also have a pretty good sense of why tech companies don’t monetarily contribute more: no incentive to do so and because OSS is often chosen specifically to avoid costs. Hard to see why those things will stop being true.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    I think it’s pretty easy: Refer to any manager or executive at a tech company who uses open source to generate profits but doesn’t contribute as a “deadbeat” — so their choice becomes a source of social embarrassment.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      If you think companies care about embarrassment I have a nice house in Bhopal to sell you.
      - DoreenMichele 2y ago
        Yeah, I think it would take something like bankruptcy of a Fortune 500 company because a critical open source piece shut down. And I'm not holding my breath that even that would sink in. People are amazingly talented at hearing only what they want to hear to justify doing it like they've always done it.
        chii 2y ago
        > because a critical open source piece shut down. unless they're using some sort of hosted service for free, this cannot be critical. After all, software doens't rot, and they could continue to use the existing release until a (new) solution is found. Look at how crowdstrike triggered outage didn't cause bankruptcy - that is more critical than most OSS would be.
        DoreenMichele 2y ago
        It doesn't rot? I mean if it stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something, it can become effectively obsolete. Though I will note I'm agreeing that it's highly unlikely you can put a gun to the heads of corporations and get them to cough up, so I'm not sure what the point is here.
        chii 2y ago
        > stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something which doesn't happen instantly. For example, the end of life of the old java versions (1.5, 7 and 8 etc) - plenty of companies simply just paid a support fee and get support, while others paid to upgrade (or even change stack). Most open source software, even with lack of updates, does not immediately start failing. The huge amount of time and leeway, even with security issues, is what prevents it from being critical, and prevents OSS from causing a bankruptcy.
        DoreenMichele 2y ago
    - fph 2y ago
      Is there a website where one can see some open source contribution metrics? I found https://opensourceindex.io/ https://opensourceindex.io/ , but the absolute numbers do not tell much by themselves; of course the biggest companies contribute more[1]. [1] apart from Meta and Apple, they seem ridiculously low.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      That's only if they agree with your description. I really don't see that happening. I just see the simple, factual retort: "we're not deadbeats, and if you wanted us to pay, you should have sold it to us instead of giving it to us for free." Which is absolutely correct! As an open-source author and maintainer, I have no desire or motivation to call any of my users "deadbeats", especially when I license my software under terms that specifically do not require any kind of payment. That would be pretty hypocritical, as I've used lots of open source software (both personally and professionally) without paying for it.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Why would you say that? I believe the GP is correct. Unless something drastically changes, why would we expect companies to start getting generous, spending money they don't have to? Especially in the context of donations! If we're talking about a licensing shift that requires companies to pay, then sure. But for donations? I doubt it.

squigz 2y ago

Terrible reason to believe something won't happen.

phendrenad2 2y ago
Actually no, historical data is the best indicator of future probability.
jaredklewis 2y ago
Fair enough, but having worked inside a lot of tech companies I think I also have a pretty good sense of why tech companies don’t monetarily contribute more: no incentive to do so and because OSS is often chosen specifically to avoid costs. Hard to see why those things will stop being true.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  I think it’s pretty easy: Refer to any manager or executive at a tech company who uses open source to generate profits but doesn’t contribute as a “deadbeat” — so their choice becomes a source of social embarrassment.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    If you think companies care about embarrassment I have a nice house in Bhopal to sell you.
    - DoreenMichele 2y ago
      Yeah, I think it would take something like bankruptcy of a Fortune 500 company because a critical open source piece shut down. And I'm not holding my breath that even that would sink in. People are amazingly talented at hearing only what they want to hear to justify doing it like they've always done it.
      - chii 2y ago
        > because a critical open source piece shut down. unless they're using some sort of hosted service for free, this cannot be critical. After all, software doens't rot, and they could continue to use the existing release until a (new) solution is found. Look at how crowdstrike triggered outage didn't cause bankruptcy - that is more critical than most OSS would be.
        DoreenMichele 2y ago
        It doesn't rot? I mean if it stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something, it can become effectively obsolete. Though I will note I'm agreeing that it's highly unlikely you can put a gun to the heads of corporations and get them to cough up, so I'm not sure what the point is here.
        chii 2y ago
        > stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something which doesn't happen instantly. For example, the end of life of the old java versions (1.5, 7 and 8 etc) - plenty of companies simply just paid a support fee and get support, while others paid to upgrade (or even change stack). Most open source software, even with lack of updates, does not immediately start failing. The huge amount of time and leeway, even with security issues, is what prevents it from being critical, and prevents OSS from causing a bankruptcy.
        DoreenMichele 2y ago
  - fph 2y ago
    Is there a website where one can see some open source contribution metrics? I found https://opensourceindex.io/ https://opensourceindex.io/ , but the absolute numbers do not tell much by themselves; of course the biggest companies contribute more[1]. [1] apart from Meta and Apple, they seem ridiculously low.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    That's only if they agree with your description. I really don't see that happening. I just see the simple, factual retort: "we're not deadbeats, and if you wanted us to pay, you should have sold it to us instead of giving it to us for free." Which is absolutely correct! As an open-source author and maintainer, I have no desire or motivation to call any of my users "deadbeats", especially when I license my software under terms that specifically do not require any kind of payment. That would be pretty hypocritical, as I've used lots of open source software (both personally and professionally) without paying for it.
kelnos 2y ago
Why would you say that? I believe the GP is correct. Unless something drastically changes, why would we expect companies to start getting generous, spending money they don't have to? Especially in the context of donations! If we're talking about a licensing shift that requires companies to pay, then sure. But for donations? I doubt it.