Remember the Companies Making Vital Open Source Contributions (infoworld.com)
- Reference: 0178705006
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/08/16/1749228/remember-the-companies-making-vital-open-source-contributions
- Source link: https://www.infoworld.com/article/4037083/who-does-the-unsexy-but-essential-work-for-open-source.html
And this week [2]Asay contributed an opinion piece to InfoWorld reminding us of open source contributions from companies where "enlightened self-interest underwrites the boring but vital work — CI hardware, security audits, long-term maintenance — that grassroots volunteers struggle to fund."
> [I]f you look at the [3]Linux 6.15 kernel contributor list (as just one example), the top contributor, as measured by change sets, is Intel... Another example: Take the [4]last year of contributions to Kubernetes. Google (of course), Red Hat, Microsoft, VMware, and AWS all headline the list. Not because it's sexy, but because they make billions of dollars selling Kubernetes services... Some companies (including mine) sell proprietary software, and so it's easy to mentally bucket these vendors with license fees or closed cloud services. That bias makes it easy to ignore empirical contribution data, which indicates open source contributions on a grand scale.
Asay notes Oracle's many contributions to Linux:
> In the [Linux kernel] 6.1 release cycle, [5]Oracle emerged as the top contributor by lines of code changed across the entire kernel... [I]t's Oracle that patches memory-management structures and shepherds block-device drivers for the Linux we all use. Oracle's kernel work isn't a one-off either. A few releases earlier, the company [6]topped the "core of the kernel" leaderboard in 5.18, and it hasn't slowed down since, helping land the Maple Tree data structure and other performance boosters. Those patches power Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), of course, but they also speed up Ubuntu on your old ThinkPad. Self-interested contributions? Absolutely. Public benefit? Equally absolute.
>
> This isn't just an Oracle thing. When we widen the lens beyond Oracle, the pattern holds. In 2023, I [7]wrote about Amazon's "quiet open source revolution ," showing how AWS was suddenly everywhere in GitHub commit logs despite the company's earlier reticence. (Disclosure: I used to run AWS' open source strategy and marketing team.) Back in 2017, I [8]argued that cloud vendors were open sourcing code as on-ramps to proprietary services rather than end-products. Both observations remain true, but they miss a larger point: Motives aside, the code flows and the community benefits.
>
> If you care about outcomes, the motives don't really matter. Or maybe they do: It's far more sustainable to have companies contributing because it helps them deliver revenue than to contribute out of charity. The [9]former is durable ; the latter is not.
There's another practical consideration: scale. "Large vendors wield resources that community projects can't match."
Asay closes by urging readers to "Follow the commits" and "embrace mixed motives... the point isn't sainthood; it's sustainable, shared innovation. Every company (and really every developer) contributes out of some form of self-interest. That's the rule, not the exception. Embrace it."
> Going forward, we should expect to see even more counterintuitive contributor lists. Generative AI is turbocharging code generation, but someone still has to integrate those patches, write tests, and shepherd them upstream. The companies with the most to lose from brittle infrastructure — cloud providers, database vendors, silicon makers — will foot the bill. If history is a guide, they'll do so quietly.
[1] https://interviews.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/186206/matt-asay-answers-your-questions-about-ubuntu-and-canonical
[2] https://www.infoworld.com/article/4037083/who-does-the-unsexy-but-essential-work-for-open-source.html
[3] https://lwn.net/Articles/1022414/
[4] https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/9/companies-table?orgId=1&var-period_name=Last%20year&var-metric=contributions
[5] https://it.it-news-and-events.info/articles/298/3/IT-Linux/125196
[6] https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/post/chart-topping-contributions-to-linux-kernel
[7] https://www.infoworld.com/article/2338356/amazon-s-quiet-open-source-revolution.html
[8] https://www.infoworld.com/article/2260293/open-source-innovation-is-now-all-about-vendor-on-ramps-2.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[9] https://www.infoworld.com/article/2269353/open-source-is-selfish.html
Companies still getting a free ride* (Score:5, Insightful)
What you should be remembering is that these are not examples of companies providing "vital contributions" but that the vast majority of companies are freeloaders who do nothing to help the very open source community that they rely on every day. These companies are still getting a free ride, they simply have their own requirements for the software and so the community benefits. The GPL is written specifically so that individual efforts to assist in improving the software will benefit everyone that uses that software.
Oracle only spends money when theyt benefit from. This isn't charity or "mixed motives", it's entirely profit motivated and it should be recognized as such.
Open source developer should de-prioritize all communications from companies that aren't making contributions proportional to their profits because they are doing less than the average user which makes zero profit.
Spin Man (Score:4, Interesting)
Not surprising that a person hired to sell to developers has positive things to say about their big corporation's gracious donations. Yeah, self interest is great but that only goes so far. If they want developers to feel like they are gracious, they have a long way to go.
Like for example they could donate the JavaScript trademark that they have little stake in. Or stop using Java or VirtualBox as license traps to ensnare. Weaponized generosity isn't very generous.
I have to wonder (Score:3)
How much of this long, rambling story is just an attempt at self-justification for taking a high-paying job from a company that's actively evil? Maybe he's hoping to work for Meta next...
Re: (Score:2)
Company that originated with the CIA still employs talented people, story at 11. These stories understate how FOSS is still Oracle's sworn enemy, just like with microsoft.
Why should we remember them? (Score:3)
They are, by and large, for-profit companies that make open source contributions because those in charge of said companies think that doing so helps them increase their profits. That's all. You are not supposed to remember such companies, much less be grateful to them; you use their wares if that is to your advantage and you ditch them once that is not the case any more.
this will be fun ... (Score:3)
> Generative AI is turbocharging code generation, but someone still has to integrate those patches, write tests, and shepherd them upstream. The companies with the most to lose from brittle infrastructure — cloud providers, database vendors, silicon makers — will foot the bill. If history is a guide, they'll do so quietly.
over linus' cold deady body :D