[ftlio]

> I'm all about open-source, but I wish people wouldn't focus on how companies should do it because it's good for them financially

1) Why on Earth would a company spend a considerable amount of resources on doing something that isn't good for them financially? That's their thing, and in the whole scheme of things seems like good separation of concerns. Companies make profits. Other things do other things.

2) Figuring out how to measure the productivity of an open source project from a single perspective is a positive thing. We know that the externalities of the large profile, well-funded, open source projects feed back into their participating parties positively, from those funding them to those participating out of pure interest. Some of the big companies can even account for this in some way, but we also know that it's hard to fully account for the benefit.

One explanation for why a company might fund open source, given to me by someone working for Microsoft to the end of funding open source projects, is that open source generates the highest degree of reusable code. My guess is that allowing disparate interests to define a thing will net you a more nuanced definition than otherwise. Time preference will always be a thing though. Often you need to be fast more than you need to be correct.

[TallGuyShort]

Yeah I phrased that poorly. I think open-source is good for companies financially because it makes a more valuable product for end-users. And I wish THAT was the focus. What is typically the focus (although admittedly, is not really the focus in this article) in presentations trying to get companies to do open-source is, "look - people will do a bunch of free work for you". I think that's both unlikely and beside the point. I didn't mean to say that the fact that there IS a financial ROI should be irrelevant or a negative.

For instance: I gladly pay more for a book directly from O'Reilly because they don't have DRM on their ebooks. It's not that they're getting any direct freebies or savings from not doing DRM, it's that I look at the freer-as-in-libre product and think it's just a more valuable thing for me to buy. Same with software.

[pythonaut_16]

Many more enterprisey, open-source averse companies still seem to have a woeful lack of understanding of what open source actually is.

Just yesterday I heard someone saying a down side of open source is that you're relying on people's (contributor's) free time for any feature to get done. He somehow overlooked the fact that the largest and most popular open source projects tend to have full time paid contributors (often at Microsoft or Google), or in other cases have an active community with a far better delivery record than just about any enterprise software team.

[ftlio]

That makes much more sense.