On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 14:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 08:44 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > I know that JoshB and I are constantly speaking with companies to get
> > them to contribute (code and otherwise).
>
> Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the
> right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the
> contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act.
You can't because by nature Companies don't do the "right" thing. They
do the "profitable" thing. There must be a positive capital return to
the donation. EDB and CMD (and 2ndQuandrant) gain a considerable amount
of capital return from the investments they make, because they make
money off of PostgreSQL.
However, ADP (which actually does give a lot back in a tertiary fashion)
doesn't gain from giving directly to PostgreSQL. The traditional
arguments of, if we don't have contributors we don't grow, and the
project suffers doesn't apply. Why? Because they have the expertise to
maintain the code themselves (just like Yahoo). They currently chose not
to, but chose PostgreSQL because they "could" should they need to.
I agree that it would be wonderful if we could have an environment where
the companies that use PostgreSQL feel it is a responsibility to
participate but I seriously doubt that will ever be the case (just
looking at Open Source as a whole).
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
