5 ms·

> It is time these companies really give back. I'm not going to sit here shilling for the corporates, but at the same time I think you need to put yourself in

> It is time these companies really give back. I'm not going to sit here shilling for the corporates, but at the same time I think you need to put yourself in their shoes. The stance you are taking is essentially the same as if a chugger stops me in the street and asks me to sign up to regular donations to $charity because "its only $1 a month". To which the inevitable answer is "sure, and there are a gazillion other charities, so I'm supposed to give $1 to all of them because its 'only' $1 a month" ? I will choose which charities and how much to donate to on my terms, thank you very much. And its the same with corporates and open-source. Your favourite pet-project might be OpenBSD and you might think $evilCorp should give more to them ? But what about all the gazillion other pieces a typical $evilCorp will use ? OpenSSL ? curl ? ping ? traceroute ? In your idealistic world a corporate would give $1m to each of them I guess ? The fact is the corporate lawyers know you've released your software on open terms. I'm sure they would be happy to buy an OpenBSD license ... but OpenBSD made their bed, as it says on their website "OpenBSD policy is simple — OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any purpose. " And before you say "well, they could donate instead of buying licenses" ... let's just say you would be naïve. Buying licenses is a "simple" standardised procurement exercise in most corporates. Meanwhile giving donations typically is a far more bespoke process involving far more administrative burden. And the smaller the recipient of the donation, the more admin burden required. As others have pointed out $evilCorp does contribute indirectly to open-source. Many of the core maintainers and contributors to open-source are employed by $evilCorp and file their PRs to the open-source projects on their employer's dime, often whilst sitting in their employer's offices, using their employer's computers and infrastructure.

formerly_proven 2y ago
E-Corp typically has support contracts with vendors like Red Hat which in turn employ developers.
danlitt 2y ago
> I will choose which charities and how much to donate to on my terms, thank you very much. Indeed. The observation is that generally for most corporations the charities are "nobody" and the amounts are "$0". If you, an individual, behave this way then you're a bad person. The argument is merely that the corporate "people" are also being bad people. > In your idealistic world a corporate would give $1m to each of them I guess? Why make this ridiculous strawman? If we said "some reasonable amount, distributed among their dependencies" why is that unreasonable? Do we have to draw out the whole picture before these people even attempt to consider what a reasonable contribution could be? > The fact is the corporate lawyers know you've released your software on open terms. Yes, and corporate parasites will therefore extract the maximum value while providing the minimum in return. History repeats itself. > Buying licenses is a "simple" standardised procurement exercise in most corporates. If you think about this for a few seconds you will realise it is not a good excuse. If ping/openssl/whatever had a "recommended contribution" listed on their "corporate licensing" page, then there is no administrative burden required whatsoever. You just pay whatever they ask, same as a license. You think the price is too high? Make up one. So why is there a high administrative burden? Simply, because corporates themselves place a high value on "paying the bare legal minimum". In other words, they over-value the virtue of being cheap and unsociable. If your reaction to this is "that's just how business is", then good for you: according to your understanding, business is antisocial, and should be discouraged.

formerly_proven 2y ago

E-Corp typically has support contracts with vendors like Red Hat which in turn employ developers.

danlitt 2y ago

> I will choose which charities and how much to donate to on my terms, thank you very much. Indeed. The observation is that generally for most corporations the charities are "nobody" and the amounts are "$0". If you, an individual, behave this way then you're a bad person. The argument is merely that the corporate "people" are also being bad people. > In your idealistic world a corporate would give $1m to each of them I guess? Why make this ridiculous strawman? If we said "some reasonable amount, distributed among their dependencies" why is that unreasonable? Do we have to draw out the whole picture before these people even attempt to consider what a reasonable contribution could be? > The fact is the corporate lawyers know you've released your software on open terms. Yes, and corporate parasites will therefore extract the maximum value while providing the minimum in return. History repeats itself. > Buying licenses is a "simple" standardised procurement exercise in most corporates. If you think about this for a few seconds you will realise it is not a good excuse. If ping/openssl/whatever had a "recommended contribution" listed on their "corporate licensing" page, then there is no administrative burden required whatsoever. You just pay whatever they ask, same as a license. You think the price is too high? Make up one. So why is there a high administrative burden? Simply, because corporates themselves place a high value on "paying the bare legal minimum". In other words, they over-value the virtue of being cheap and unsociable. If your reaction to this is "that's just how business is", then good for you: according to your understanding, business is antisocial, and should be discouraged.