3/3: And you don't need every company using the OSS to contribute back in order for this model to work.
-
-
TLDR people drastically undercount the $ in existing allocated headcount when talking about the alleged "open source funding crisis"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That approach seems viable - but also seems to let a lot of value generation go uncaptured. Not making an “it’s not fair” argument, but /1
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
from a purely economic standpoint, consumer surplus is huge here, and producer surplus is almost nil. For OSS author, you might be /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
creating huge value, but only capturing 9-5 salary for it. /3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davewasmer @feross
I mean at this point we're really just discussing the normal consequences of capitalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I really just don't see how the alternative models capture nearly as much value for the creators of OSS than the salary model.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If we're really just saying "I can't figure out how to make a unicorn company from OSS" then sure, but stuff like 0L doesn't help there.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So you think it’s basically impossible to capture that surplus? No snark intended, genuinely curious.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davewasmer @feross
I think that analysis also misses economic value created by people who contribute to OSS and improve their careers.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Something generally just seems fishy to me about the pure economic argument. I don't think most OSS is actually created this way.
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.