3 ms·
Regarding B: This tracks with what I've observed in this regard, namely that sponsoring by companies just doesn't work well as business model even for projects
by myrmidon 2y ago
Regarding B: This tracks with what I've observed in this regard, namely that sponsoring by companies just doesn't work well as business model even for projects where you would assume that it should. The incentives are just not working out, and it seems impossible to mobilize even a fraction of the sums for OSS-donations than what companies burn for much less critical aspects of their operation than OSS tools/libraries/components (or waste outright).
Open source is largely a thing because lots of people voluntarily invest (valuable!) time on their own in my opinion (with corporate sponsorship being almost negligible by comparison).
- that_guy_iain 2y agoMost big open-source projects are a thing because a companies invest in it. When we rely on people doing it in their free time what we see is unmaintained software. The entire idea that open source is volunteer work is largely a myth when it comes to popular open source. Even the ones where you think it's volunteer work they do so much during their working hours that either they're lying to their employer or it's sponsored by their employer.
- creer 2y agoIsn't it both? In particular dependent on the size of the project? And it's still easy for individuals to at least contribute detailed problem reports even to very large projects. And these are useful. Even when ignored by the lead mafia.