5 ms·
https://github.com/twitter/ https://github.com/twitter/ "100 public repos" https://github.com/facebook https://github.com/facebook "95 public repos" https://g
by joekrill 13y ago
https://github.com/twitter/ https://github.com/twitter/
"100 public repos"
https://github.com/facebook https://github.com/facebook
"95 public repos"
https://github.com/37signals https://github.com/37signals
"44 public repos"
https://github.com/linkedin https://github.com/linkedin
"49 public repos"
https://github.com/soundcloud https://github.com/soundcloud
"131 public repos"
These aren't "Open-Source companies". They contribute greatly to open source projects. But aren't themselves "Open-Source".
- incanus77 13y agoYou can use MapBox's open source software to do everything you'd pay MapBox for on your own. You'll just have your work cut out to autoscale and make it georedundant at high volume, which is MapBox's value add. MapBox isn't selling the software IP, the user, ads, or lock-in.
- joekrill 13y agoSimply posting a github link and "156 public repos" doesn't really imply this, though. So thank you for clarifying.
- hackula1 13y agoIf 37signals were to release basecamp, this would be a better comparison. At that point, I would probably call 37signals an opensource company, even if they ran a SASS model.