Is It Good For Business To Subsidize OSS Developers?

ruphus13 writes "A lot of developers for open source software have full-time day jobs too. As economist Milton Friedman said, 'The business of business is business.' So, does it make sense for companies to encourage their developers to contribute to the open source community? OStatic discusses a blog post by Alfresco exec Matt Asay, who makes the case for why they should. '"Companies like IBM, Intel, SGI, MIPS, Freescale, HP, etc. are all working to ensure that Linux runs well on their hardware. That, in turn, makes their offerings more attractive to Linux users, resulting in increased sales." While I don't think we'll ever see companies everywhere subsidizing employee development of open source tools, many tech and non-tech companies alike could benefit from subsidizing open source development from employees with talent. If more companies woke up to this idea, we'd see more purpose-driven, mission-critical open source software shared by firms in the same industries. That, ultimately, would benefit the companies providing the subsidies.' Should your employer pay you for time spent on open source development?" snydeq points out an Infoworld story suggesting that there's something to learn from the way French companies are promoting open-source development.

Comments

Define "Good"

[Mateo_LeFou]

Is it "good" to maintain and expand the upstream rain forest that provides your raw materials?

It's not good for this week's balance sheet, but it's good if you think about it for five minutes.

Collective action problem

[dash2]

Why would a business pay for software that benefits everybody else? Why not just wait for someone else to do it?

There are answers to this question - e.g. IBM or Google is big enough and uses Linux enough that it needs to make the fixes just for its own benefit; pushing them upstream is not much extra work. Or, companies in long-term relationships - e.g. in the Silicon Valley ecosystem - can encourage each other to contribute to public goods like OSS via a "reputation mechanism" - contributors get respect and this translates into better relationships.

But the CAP is the fundamental issue.

Re:Collective action problem

[QuantumG]

This attitude that business is being charitable to open source when they push changes upstream is just, well, ignorant.

They push their changes upstream because they don't want to have to keep merging them in every time a new version comes out. If they didn't push them upstream they'd either have to weigh down their development team with annoying merging duties or they'd have to stick with outdated versions of the software.

The fact that they can push stuff that possibly is completely useless to everyone else upstream and have it accepted as part of the build is one of the wonders of open source.. and, if anything, it's the upstream developers who are being charitable.

Because reinventing the wheel is really expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

F/OSS means that you don't have to buy or write an operating system just to run a single program on a single device, or write an OS for a new piece of equipment from scratch. It means you don't have to come up with a proprietary database when you're not sure the bigger project will pan out. It means that you can support standards and undermine format monopolies, allowing you to bring your product to market despite an 800lb gorilla.

"The business of business is business" doesn't mean that short-term gain trumps long-term. It means that business, in a market economy, seeks advantages where it can find them. Having a large base of reliable free software is a big enough advantage for some companies that they happily underwrite its development.