potiuk commented on code in PR #216: URL: https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216#discussion_r2651824962
########## source/companies/_index.md: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +--- +title: Companies and Open Source +url: /companies/ +tags: ["companies", "business", "navigation"] +--- + +# Companies and Open Source + +All modern digital infrastructure is dependent on open source software. +Companies must think strategically about how they will engage with the +open source projects on which they rely in order to ensure +sustainability, and influence the direction of these projects for the +benefit of their customers. + +## [Benefits to Companies](/companies/benefits.html) + +Active participation in open source projects provides significant strategic and operational benefits to companies, from talent acquisition to technology innovation and market positioning. + + +## Ways to contribute + +There are three primary ways that companies can engage with ASF +projects. Each has costs and benefits that should be carefully +considered. + +<div class="row"> + <!-- Employ --> + <div class="col-md-4"> + +### [Employ Contributors](/companies/employ.html) + +[](/companies/employ.html) + +The most impactful way companies support open source is by employing developers and other professionals who contribute to projects. This includes not just code contributions, but documentation, community management, testing, design, and advocacy work. + </div><!-- End Employ --> + Review Comment: A bit more explanation, long, but I hope it can clarify it: Employee (prety much always by definitiion) has a non-compete agreemeent and cannot cooperate with other stakeholders. This is regular clause in employment contracts, and one that is even valid according to California Laws. The laws in California forbid Employers to restrict people to switch to competition, but it's standard (and kind of morally correct) to expect your employees to also cooperate - while they are employees - (and get some money from) with your direct competition. This is expected by all the laws about employment I saw. And main reasons I refused to be an employee of Astronomer for example. When it comes to "supporting maintainers" rather than "employing them" - such "support maintainers" does not imply (and actually it makes no sense) to have a clause forbidding the maintainer to be supported by direct competition of the company that supports the maintainer. I think there is a huge difference between the two - and one that makes individuals much more empowered in the whole process. Like in my case - I am supported by Astronomer and Google - both pay me to be "maintainer". If I were an employee of either of those - that would be impossible to be paid by the other, because this violates the standard "non-compete" agreements. I could "work on Airflow" for free - but legally, i would not be able to be paid by the competitor. Not mentioning any other agreements I can have. Employment contract heavily limits usually who you can get paid from. For me - personally - it gives a lot more freedom, flexibility and also independence - my sources of income come from several, independent stakeholders, legally allowed in the contracts I have, and I do not have to make my decisions making to account "what happens if I loose my single income source". Not that I ever had to face that choice - actually, the fact that I have different stakeholders supporting me, this means that my decsion making process is far less influenced by it. It's basically the same dillemma that ASF as an organisation faces (and any other Foundation). If they have a single source of income - no matter how hard you try, if you are not ready to quit "now", basically the one who holds your single source of income has a real impact on the decisions you make. This is why important point of ASF is either to always have a way out or to diversify the funding. Both are good strategies. This is the same with individuals - yes, the commitership and PMC membership is with **you** - but if you are not ready to **quit** at any time without fear when you are an employee, or if you do not have diverse source of income, then employer who at any point in time can say "Don't do it, or this is your last thing you do as our employee" - they can have an upper hand on decision making of such an individual. This is very basic thing - diversification of the source of your income. This is basic thing when you are investing money, but also this shoudl be - IMHO - one of the basic strategues to maintain your independence. Being able to quit any time is also a good one, and combining the two - being able to quit AND diversify - is an ultimate "I make my own decisions, for what I think is best for the project" safety net. And yeah I will push a more detailed fixup for that soon. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
