[bmir-alum-007]

I've worked on open+closed source in enterprise startups with people that come from both MSFT- and Linux-centric worlds respectively. The MSFT centric-people tend (not all) poo-poo open source as a complete waste of time and/or lack of business savviness (helps competitors too much). There is some open source contributions in such shops, but usually only if it helps (and doesn't seem to hurt) the bottom-line.

PS: Unfortunately, most Fortune 2000 enterprise (ms and non-ms shops) abuse the fuck out of open source and give zero back (time, $ or help). I really think there should be some "community charge" funding model which doesn't make it nakedly for-profit but rewards people that contribute, maintain and support useful code that is widely deployed so they're not completely abused as unpaid crowdslaves.

[pmontra]

I understand your feelings but legally speaking the only abuse of that kind would be taking GPLed software, modifying it, distributing it and not sharing it back. If the software has been licensed with BSD or similar licenses that don't require to share modifications, then the original developers are perfectly fine with not seeing anything coming out from those corporations. Their choice, no abuses.

[geon]

Absolutely. It is in their own interest to share contributions upstream. If they don't, they are forced to re-apply their patches over-and-over or just not upgrade.

[Asbostos]

If MSFT centric people think open source is a waste of time that helps their competitors, and open source contributors are wasting their time helping their competitors, then doesn't that mean the MSFT centric people are perfectly right, and people really should avoid contributing to open source unless it help their own interests directly?

If you want open source and user pays at the same time, then it's not really open source. What you end up with is closed source which has already worked well for a lot of companies.