4 ms·

There is not much people can do to force big companies to donate $$ to open source communities. I really don’t think OSS is a valid business venue. It could wo

There is not much people can do to force big companies to donate $$ to open source communities. I really don’t think OSS is a valid business venue. It could work, but most of the time it doesn’t. So either do it for the love and happiness, or just don’t do it for free.

Perz1val 1y ago
Ideally big tech money enables people to retire early and they'd maintain open source projects in their spare time
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Maybe. When I retired my plan is to de-tech my life as much as I possibly can.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
ModernMech 1y ago
Certainly there is! Raise taxes on big tech profits and use those revenues to fund open source. We shouldn't depend on love and happiness to build the technologies that are foundational to our largest companies, while they get rich.
- markus_zhang 1y ago
  But this is not realistic. Big companies pocket more politicians than all HN commenters ever know.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  These companies are not doing anything amoral here. If the developers of these open source projects expect to be paid for their work by any means other than voluntary donations they should use different licenses.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    I'm saying this is a dumb way to fund critical tech infrastructure. And since the tech industry has proven they can't self regulate themselves into a sensible funding model, then we should use our representative democracy and create legislation that sees it done.
dismalaf 1y ago
OSS isn't a business model. The most successful projects I've seen is when someone has a business, releases a tool they use, then others iterate on said tool that the business uses. Then everyone gets a better tool. Think Linux, Rails, most programming languages, etc... OSS as a business model usually means a rug-pull, and I've never seen it going that well...
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Most programming languages have a commercial history related to them, either developed by corporations, or authors have been employed by major universities or corporations. Linux was largely irrelevant until 1998, what happened then specifically? > Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux. The Cathedral and the Bazaar is first published as an essay (later as a book), resulting in Netscape publicly releasing the source code to its Netscape -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux Rails happened because Basecamp made it possible.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    All those examples prove my point.

Perz1val 1y ago

Ideally big tech money enables people to retire early and they'd maintain open source projects in their spare time

SoftTalker 1y ago
Maybe. When I retired my plan is to de-tech my life as much as I possibly can.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

ModernMech 1y ago

Certainly there is! Raise taxes on big tech profits and use those revenues to fund open source. We shouldn't depend on love and happiness to build the technologies that are foundational to our largest companies, while they get rich.

markus_zhang 1y ago
But this is not realistic. Big companies pocket more politicians than all HN commenters ever know.
_mlbt 1y ago
These companies are not doing anything amoral here. If the developers of these open source projects expect to be paid for their work by any means other than voluntary donations they should use different licenses.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  I'm saying this is a dumb way to fund critical tech infrastructure. And since the tech industry has proven they can't self regulate themselves into a sensible funding model, then we should use our representative democracy and create legislation that sees it done.

dismalaf 1y ago

OSS isn't a business model. The most successful projects I've seen is when someone has a business, releases a tool they use, then others iterate on said tool that the business uses. Then everyone gets a better tool. Think Linux, Rails, most programming languages, etc... OSS as a business model usually means a rug-pull, and I've never seen it going that well...

pjmlp 1y ago
Most programming languages have a commercial history related to them, either developed by corporations, or authors have been employed by major universities or corporations. Linux was largely irrelevant until 1998, what happened then specifically? > Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux. The Cathedral and the Bazaar is first published as an essay (later as a book), resulting in Netscape publicly releasing the source code to its Netscape -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux Rails happened because Basecamp made it possible.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  All those examples prove my point.