Many open source projects are developed solely by volunteers. Projects are enhanced when these volunteers have time to spend on the project. On the other hand, some open source projects are funded by companies. These projects have full-time developers working on the software. A couple examples of this are Firefox, which is funded mostly by Google, and the popular Linux distrobution, Fedora, which is funded by Red Hat. These full-time developers can ensure that the project grows at a steady pace.
The idea behind open source is volunteers contributing to the cause. As more open source projects become successful, more companies may turn to the open source business model and pay developers to work on their open source projects. When developers are paid for their work, then volunteers are less likely to contribute. Will this shift from volunteers to paid developers be good for open source software, or is it a step closer to proprietary software?
I believe that if I were a business comparing two software solutions I would be attracted to an open-source solution with paid developers. Open-source software can sometimes behave like biological ecosystems. Prolific diversity gradually produces robust solutions to difficult problems, but with a swarm of casualties as payment.
ReplyDeletePaid developers would give me more confidence that my use of an open-source software solution is more likely to be supported in the years to come, while maintaining the comfort of open customization, if I need.