I have been thinking about this recently. In a course I took on US economic history we studied the Silicon Valley during the first half of the 20th century. There was a major boom in technological innovation, and a major reason why was the open sharing of ideas among the local tinkerers. The invention of television as it exists was not a product of Farnsworth’s singular genius but of an entire community of inventors freely collaborating out of personal interest. Very different from Silicon Valley today except for one element: the FOSS movement. FOSS is where the experimenting and innovation is happening because the ideas can’t be locked down as they are in the proprietary area where innovation is stifled. It makes sense for corporations to pour money into FOSS because FOSS makes possible what is to them impossible. Also, investments like that are probably a small fraction of what an R&D department working from scratch could cost.
It is amusing though that since the FOSS people are often under no obligations they don’t have to do what big companies want them to do.
I look at it like a professional organization coming together to define standards. A major company may choose to help develop a standard set of software that is 90%+ of the way there instead of dealing with vendor lock-in or the risk of developing from scratch.
Big Tech makes the cart FOSS, then they harvest the wheels… while a bunch of people discuss whether to add wings or to make it waterproof. /s
FOSS, and in particular the GPL, has two sides:
User protection: users get the guarantee that whenever the original dev(s) or Big Tech(s) get bored, switch objectives, or go belly up, then someone else will be able to continue development if they wish.
Corporate cooperation: corporations get the guarantee that no other corporation can take their work, add a couple killer features, and use them to kick the original corporation out of the market.
The problem with FOSS, begins with the argument of “but if I can’t take your work to kick you off the market and leave all users stranded, then it isn’t real freedom”. Kind of similar to the arguments around “free speech”.
There is a way for “Big Tech” to play along with everyone, then it’s up to each corporation whether they will.
Just to clarify, this post is not meant to glorify startups! Startups also have CEO and it’s same as first line in the meme.
This post is meant to start a discussion and to highlight the effects big tech having on FOSS.
It’s aginst big tech not aginst FOSS!
I have been thinking about this recently. In a course I took on US economic history we studied the Silicon Valley during the first half of the 20th century. There was a major boom in technological innovation, and a major reason why was the open sharing of ideas among the local tinkerers. The invention of television as it exists was not a product of Farnsworth’s singular genius but of an entire community of inventors freely collaborating out of personal interest. Very different from Silicon Valley today except for one element: the FOSS movement. FOSS is where the experimenting and innovation is happening because the ideas can’t be locked down as they are in the proprietary area where innovation is stifled. It makes sense for corporations to pour money into FOSS because FOSS makes possible what is to them impossible. Also, investments like that are probably a small fraction of what an R&D department working from scratch could cost.
It is amusing though that since the FOSS people are often under no obligations they don’t have to do what big companies want them to do.
I look at it like a professional organization coming together to define standards. A major company may choose to help develop a standard set of software that is 90%+ of the way there instead of dealing with vendor lock-in or the risk of developing from scratch.
Big Tech makes the cart FOSS, then they harvest the wheels… while a bunch of people discuss whether to add wings or to make it waterproof. /s
FOSS, and in particular the GPL, has two sides:
The problem with FOSS, begins with the argument of “but if I can’t take your work to kick you off the market and leave all users stranded, then it isn’t real freedom”. Kind of similar to the arguments around “free speech”.
There is a way for “Big Tech” to play along with everyone, then it’s up to each corporation whether they will.