I find the author’s view puzzling. For open source projects that have the goal to become profitable and have full-time staff working on them, there are plenty that make this happen. For example, Ghost (the blog engine) via providing sourcing. RedHat similarly provided services and consulting on top of their open source contributions. Databricks, founded by the creators of Spark, is a unicorn.
The author is looking at the wrong type of metric. Expecting that every open source project on Github will get donations to pay each contributor a full-time salary is nonsense.
Also, on top of the value add services profitability route, the article does not take into account how many companies have full time employees contribute to open source as part of their working hours - a very tangible open source investment. While the author asks for companies to donate 0.5% or more of their profits to open source projects, I work at an unprofitable unicorn (Uber) which is a heavy contributor to open source itself and my team contributes to open source as part of our work: both to other projects, as well as open sourcing tools and improvements we built.
The same can be said for some of the most popular open source projects. Angular? Originally by Google engineers, on Google company time. Tensorflow? Also Google. React? Built by Facebook. Atom? By Github. And the list continues with many-many projects.
>> The same can be said for some of the most popular open source projects. Angular? Originally by Google engineers, on Google company time. Tensorflow? Also Google. React? Built by Facebook. Atom? By Github. And the list continues with many-many projects.
It's not a coincidence that most popular open source projects come from big corporations. Their popularity has more to do with capital and social networks than actual merit. Also, I'm highly skeptical of open source projects which come out of corporations; their primary goal is not to help people, it's to gain mind-share and control.
There is not an ounce of altruism in corporations.
Open source software produced by consortiums of corporations is sort of a way to engage in anti competitive cooperation without running afoul of anti trust laws.
The author is looking at the wrong type of metric. Expecting that every open source project on Github will get donations to pay each contributor a full-time salary is nonsense.
Also, on top of the value add services profitability route, the article does not take into account how many companies have full time employees contribute to open source as part of their working hours - a very tangible open source investment. While the author asks for companies to donate 0.5% or more of their profits to open source projects, I work at an unprofitable unicorn (Uber) which is a heavy contributor to open source itself and my team contributes to open source as part of our work: both to other projects, as well as open sourcing tools and improvements we built.
The same can be said for some of the most popular open source projects. Angular? Originally by Google engineers, on Google company time. Tensorflow? Also Google. React? Built by Facebook. Atom? By Github. And the list continues with many-many projects.