So if we're nice to the billionaires, they may return that kindness with table scraps - if we're lucky? Sounds like the tech version of trickle-down economics.
Yes, but what's the better alternative? The article makes the point that you're not even getting table scraps back into your GPL project. In most cases, the companies prefer a proprietary rewrite. Now you're just stuck with a less-developed project, while the world around you uses more-developed proprietary alternatives and pushes you to do the same. But I guess, that somehow makes you feel better because you don't let the corporations "feed off your work" and instead just waste everyone's time on infinite rewrites?
Yeah, I don't get that argument. "Apple is funding LLVM, therefore it is getting better than GCC!". They are only funding it because it advances their goals. The moment they get what they want they will drop it or look for ways to keep the advantage all to themselves.
The same could be said about non-corporate contributions. "People only contribute as long as they have a personal itch to scratch. The moment they get what they want, you're on your own again".
That's always been the deal. Open source is not a guarantee of free support forever! It's a guarantee that you can always fork and keep using the project (or even developing it further)
Everyone only does anything if it advances their goals. Luckily Apple's goals w.r.t. LLVM are the same as everyone else's: have a high-quality compiler backend.
Expurple|7 months ago
rglullis|7 months ago
Expurple|7 months ago
That's always been the deal. Open source is not a guarantee of free support forever! It's a guarantee that you can always fork and keep using the project (or even developing it further)
umanwizard|7 months ago