←back to thread

182 points yarapavan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.275s | source
Show context
aadhavans ◴[] No.43614405[source]
A very well-written piece. The section on funding open source is as relevant as it's ever been, and I don't think we've learnt much since last year.

As the proportion of younger engineers contributing to open-source decreases (a reasonable choice, given the state of the economy), I see only two future possibilities:

1. Big corporations take ownership of key open-source libraries in an effort to continue their development.

2. Said key open-source libraries die, and corporations develop proprietary replacements for their own use. The open source scene remains alive, but with a much smaller influence.

replies(5): >>43614635 #>>43615318 #>>43615592 #>>43616293 #>>43618059 #
bluGill ◴[] No.43614635[source]
Unfortunately I have no clue how to get a company to put money into the open source we use. Not just my current company, but any company. I've sometimes been able to get permission to contribute something I build on company time, but often what I really want is someone on the project to spend a year or two maintaining it. Do the boring effort of creating a release. Write that complex feature everyone (including me) wants.

In decades past companies you to pay for my license for Visual Studio (I think of a MSDN subscription), clear case, a dozen different issue/work trackers. However as soon as an open source alternative is used I don't know how to get the money that would have been spent to them.

Come to think of it I'm maintainer of a couple open source projects that I don't use anymore and I don't normally bother even looking at the project either. Either someone needs to pay me to continue maintaining it (remember I don't find them useful myself so I'm not doing it to scratch an itch), or someone needs to take them over from me - but given xz attacks I'm no longer sure how to hand maintenance over.

replies(3): >>43614804 #>>43615366 #>>43617654 #
johngossman ◴[] No.43614804[source]
In my prior career I talked to many companies about open source usage. If you tell them they are running an unsupported database or operating system in production, they will often see the value of buying support. But it is much harder to get them to pay for non-production stuff, especially development tools. And even if you find an enlightened manager, getting budget to pay a maintainer for a project is very difficult to even explain.

“We’re paying for contract development? But it’s not one of our products and we’ll have no rights to the software? They’ll fix all the bugs we find, right? Right?” This a hard conversation at most companies, even tech companies.

replies(2): >>43614866 #>>43642981 #
1. ghaff ◴[] No.43614866[source]
Development tools was almost always a tough standalone business even before open source became so prevalent.