he/him 
I feel like many in open source don't consider companies hiring people to work on projects as "sponsoring". It's arguably much more effective and it's costing these companies more $$$ than most money sponsorships.
Show this thread
Example: @fbOpenSource let me work on Babel when I first joined (I later voluntarily stopped working on it). That cost Facebook my full-time salary. Now I still see Facebook being ostracized for not funding Babel enough.
-
-
I think hiring people to work on open source inside a company is *most* effective. Contributing people builds community, contributing money does not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Facebook also helped in the PHP community. Some Hack engineers worked full time on PHP core and they've also paid a couple of engineers to work on Wikipedia for a year.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We can argue on the level (amount) of money, that's fair, but your point of view is completely correct, 100% agree
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I totally think it is! Since
@Behance paid me for half time and I would certainly consider it as sponsorship. I just wanted but couldn't get full time and didn't find anyone else so went for doing it independently despite the strugglesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.