2 ms·

What is the desired end goal of this? Shaming companies into paying for something?

smileysteve 2y ago
> That’s where the pledge comes in. It encourages companies to pay $2,000 per year for every developer they employ to an open source maintainer of their choosing, and then publish an annual report detailing the company’s payments to the open-source ecosystem in the past year.
theturtletalks 2y ago
You'd be surprised how many people don't know that tech companies are standing on the shoulders of giants (maintainers of popular open source projects). Most people not in tech legitimately believe tech companies were built from scratch. On the flip side, FB could put up a billboard talking about how they built and open-sourced projects like React and GraphQL.
- diggan 2y ago
  > FB could put up a billboard talking about how they built and open-sourced projects like React Or they could put up billboards talking about how Llama is "Open Source" while at the same requiring projects to display "Built with Llama" prominently if they use a Llama model (guess how many companies follow this requirement?). Or, how they tried a BSD+Patents approach with React initially, until they finally changed it after much backslash? Facebook/Meta has seemingly a long history of wanting to claim they do a lot of FOSS, yet clearly mislead people about those efforts.
- bdcravens 2y ago
  Many open source contributors are employed by big tech. A lot of modern open source was born out of proprietary offerings. (for example, AJAX, which built the foundation for modern Javascript apps was built for Outlook Web) To say nothing of the fact that Microsoft owns Github and NPM. An entire class of modern applications, for better or worse, came out of Github's Electron.
- sumuyuda 2y ago
  A big difference between running/promoting your own projects vs paying external developers of FOSS software the company uses/depends on.

> That’s where the pledge comes in. It encourages companies to pay $2,000 per year for every developer they employ to an open source maintainer of their choosing, and then publish an annual report detailing the company’s payments to the open-source ecosystem in the past year.

theturtletalks 2y ago

You'd be surprised how many people don't know that tech companies are standing on the shoulders of giants (maintainers of popular open source projects). Most people not in tech legitimately believe tech companies were built from scratch. On the flip side, FB could put up a billboard talking about how they built and open-sourced projects like React and GraphQL.

diggan 2y ago
> FB could put up a billboard talking about how they built and open-sourced projects like React Or they could put up billboards talking about how Llama is "Open Source" while at the same requiring projects to display "Built with Llama" prominently if they use a Llama model (guess how many companies follow this requirement?). Or, how they tried a BSD+Patents approach with React initially, until they finally changed it after much backslash? Facebook/Meta has seemingly a long history of wanting to claim they do a lot of FOSS, yet clearly mislead people about those efforts.
bdcravens 2y ago
Many open source contributors are employed by big tech. A lot of modern open source was born out of proprietary offerings. (for example, AJAX, which built the foundation for modern Javascript apps was built for Outlook Web) To say nothing of the fact that Microsoft owns Github and NPM. An entire class of modern applications, for better or worse, came out of Github's Electron.
sumuyuda 2y ago
A big difference between running/promoting your own projects vs paying external developers of FOSS software the company uses/depends on.