potiuk commented on code in PR #216: URL: https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/216#discussion_r2658317354
########## 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: > Suggesting that full-time employees cannot make decisions that balance the project with their employer is contrary to my experience at the ASF. I do not mean suggesting that. I just merely say that not being employed gives you more freedom (for example the above freedom to be paid by competitor). I negotiated in my contracts with all my customers that it's ok if their direct competition pay me as well. I have not seen an employment contract where this would be allowed and welcome. > and stating that one can ONLY do this as an independent contributor is diametrically opposed to that message. So I'm ... reluctant. Perhaps you can convince me. I was very careful to NOT say it this way. I only stated that it's different and gives individual more "income" safety (for example by the fact that you can get money from competitors). But I am absolutely aware that it's not the only way. Vast majority of people who are paid for OSS work are paid by their employees - I am fully aware of it. But I would like to make it clear that it's not the **only** way. Similarly as you do not want to say that the **only** way is to be independent, I want to state that it's not the only way to get paid to be **employee**. It's very symmetrical IMHO, both are valid and have different set of incentives, freedoms and motivations. -- 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]
