[woodruffw]

Without bending over backwards to defend the Linux Foundation, I'll point out that the 97% number means very little -- the percentage that actually matters is the percentage that doesn't go towards funding open source at all. The Linux Foundation hasn't been solely about Linux for decades; they are (facially) responsible for hosting a very large number of open source projects.

[cyanydeez]

one could also argue that software that build on top of it create the ecosystem that can drive linux adoption.

This critique is myopic.

[coldtea]

And one would argue without actually focusing on Linux the kernel and Linux distro on top for the average user, they're just funding server FOSS for use by fat companies

[woodruffw]

That’s explicitly their mission, though! They’re a trade organization that advances member interests, not a public interest nonprofit.

(In effect, they’re a coordinating body for fat companies. They do indeed fund things in those companies’ interests, but they do it with corporate money.)

[coldtea]

>They’re a trade organization that advances member interests, not a public interest nonprofit.

Maybe they should say that with a huge banner on their website then. How many people give them money thinking it's for the good of FOSS in the idealistic sense?

[woodruffw]

Very few, I think. I had to search for their “donate” page, and it says explicitly that donations are not tax deductible.

(FWICT, the overwhelming majority of LF’s money comes from conference fees, and the biggest chunk of the rest comes from corporate dues. Private donations don’t appear to be a significant portion of their income.)

[daviddever23box]

Agreed - without user-space, developer and deployment tools, there's not much for the kernel to do. 3% on the kernel might even seem overly high.