This is a fun example of the power of open source. Bitly releases software they use internally but which isn't secret sauce. Github comes along, uses it internally, improves the original software, and ends up benefiting both.
Contributing to OSS is a non-zero-sum game and the sooner companies realise this, the better.
Not only that but the pull request is done in a fun and informal style -- a perfect example of Github's use by a Github employee =] He frankly admits that some of the changes are substantial and weren't requested or set out before hand, so there's no pressure for them to be merged into mainline if not appropriate.
It's important to note that this is an example where both sides work optimally though.
I've contributed code to OSS projects backed by companies previously and it's not uncommon to end up with "dangling" pull requests -- no-one looks at it either for months or at all.
I'm still appreciative of these companies, don't get me wrong, but if it takes months for a short but critical bugfix to get through then you're not playing the OSS model properly. Either admit it's a "dump and release" or ensure your open projects are handled properly. Developers will look at you in the future and decide that's your attitude towards all your projects (see: Oracle).
This ends up being a major problem when you need to win the trust of third party developers for your start-up/service/tool.
(I'm also really glad the dablooms library is getting more exposure due to this -- the initial Hacker News post fizzled out)
Imagine a simple market (if you're wincing already, I'm right there with you, but you asked for this right?). There are 100 customers, and two products. The products are interchangeable, save for the performance of their bloom filters.
This is a zero sum game from the perspective of the two companies providing the products.
Thanks for responding. I'm afraid my question was unclear. This was supposed to be an answer to how could contributing to an open source project be a zero sum game? You did not define what the open source project was and or the companies rationales fopr consoidering contributions to be zero-sum or otherwise.
If we further assume that the two companies who produce the two products only produce those products, then for those two companies it's zero sum for them to contribute in good faith to open source bloom filters. Any gain that one company gets in the quality of their bloom filter is likely to translate directly into fewer customers for the other.
It isn't globally zero-sum, notably the users of these companies' products are presumably better off, as are other software projects and their users who might benefit from any improvements made to open source bloom filters.
"Contributing to OSS is a non-zero-sum game and the sooner companies realize this, the better."
So I am asking him how could companies possibly think that contributing to OSS is a zero sum game? Its either zero sum or it is not. If they need to realize its non-zero-sum they would have to be under the impression that it was a zero-sum game.
I hope that cleared up my question. I'm sorry if my intentions were opaque, that was not my intention.
The default assumption ascribed to enterprise is that they don't want to contribute to open source because there is no "return" on such an investment. It is a zero-sum mentality which says "I am worse off for having shared my technology".
This may actually be the case in many situations, and where it's not, the possibility of outside contributions subsequently improving the technology is often overlooked.
Not only that but the pull request is done in a fun and informal style -- a perfect example of Github's use by a Github employee =] He frankly admits that some of the changes are substantial and weren't requested or set out before hand, so there's no pressure for them to be merged into mainline if not appropriate.
It's important to note that this is an example where both sides work optimally though. I've contributed code to OSS projects backed by companies previously and it's not uncommon to end up with "dangling" pull requests -- no-one looks at it either for months or at all.
I'm still appreciative of these companies, don't get me wrong, but if it takes months for a short but critical bugfix to get through then you're not playing the OSS model properly. Either admit it's a "dump and release" or ensure your open projects are handled properly. Developers will look at you in the future and decide that's your attitude towards all your projects (see: Oracle). This ends up being a major problem when you need to win the trust of third party developers for your start-up/service/tool.
(I'm also really glad the dablooms library is getting more exposure due to this -- the initial Hacker News post fizzled out)