Thread: Open Source -- How obligated are we to contribute?

i read article matt asay on the register morning, found interesting read...

for years, open-source advocates – including me – have demanded greater open-source contributions world's largest beneficiaries, google morgan stanley , department of defense. amazon on firing line not giving commensurate benefits receives various open-source communities, , thinking behind arguments wrong-headed ever were.

open source, turns out, doing fine, or without amazon. , will.


friend , open-source expert glyn moody not agree. believes contributing open-source projects both rational , moral obligation:

amazon's contribution open source world seems pretty minimal. that's not ungrateful, it's unwise. it's in amazon's best interests projects depends on thrive: better become, better amazon's infrastructure , products work....

[contrast with] google, choose support community in variety of ways, because knows not right thing do, rational thing do.

perhaps. i've made similar arguments in past. has become increasingly clear me on years open source tends fine without normative arguments should contribute or that.

self-interest regulates open-source software quite well.

in recent interview argentina's la pagina, linux founder linus torvalds notes "[s]upporting random hardware out there of actual [linux] programming effort goes into." guess what? many of contributions come companies manufacture hardware. take @ list of contributes linux kernel (pdf), , it's apparent.

companies contribute because suits self-interest. minute doesn't, they'll stop.

torvalds touches on in same interview:

i think there can *many* ideologies [that motivate open-source development]. own reasons, other people _their_ own reasons. think world complicated place, , people interesting , complicated animals things complex reasons. , that's why don't think there should "an ideology".

think it's refreshing see people working on linux because believe can make world better place spreading technology , making available people more - , think open source way that. that's _one_ ideology. think it's great one. isn't why started doing linux myself, warms heart see linux used way.

_also_ think it's great see commercial companies use open source because it's business. that's totally different ideology, , think that's ideology too. world _much_ worse place if didn't have companies doing things money.

ideology despise , dislike kind exclusion of other ones.

torvalds' pragmatism refreshing, , instructive, particularly in light of finger-wagging @ amazon. moody (and joe brockmeier, echoes , amplifies moody's arguments), say, if it's rational contribute open-source projects, amazon contribute. moment it's perceived self-interest furthered contributing rather free-riding, amazon contribute. , not until then.

many overlook contributing open-source projects huge burden, , not blessing. it's hard work clean code, run internal legal gauntlet, , other things required participate in open-source project. many companies it's not worth bother.

, while moody , brockmeier rightly laud google open source contributions, seem have forgotten google went years huge consumer of open source before contributed of back, , day hoards far more contributes. open projects, android, open on google's preferred terms.

google contributes out of self-interest, not because of divine should.

every company, or individual, matter. each of contributes (or doesn't) out of perceived self-interest. now, may amazon come feel contributing open-source projects linux correlates self-interest, google has, , open on time. fine. let's not pretend there compelling normative arguments demand on anyone's terms own , of open-source licenses uses.

long read, know.

tl;dr version: open source encourages contribution community, on level obligated give project? should there moral mandate give have received, or, matt , torvalds seem frame it, should contribution based on self-interest?

food thought

i don't think there's obligation give @ all. it's nice people give back, , lots of people/companies do, don't think it's obligation.

out support questions time time, although know how program in quite few different languages, don't have time contribute in meaningful sense in regard.

Forum The Ubuntu Forum Community Ubuntu Community Discussions The Cafe Open Source -- How obligated are we to contribute?

Ubuntu