Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:28 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Thread beginning with comment 550329
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-30
Not really. As I said, in the industry developing the FLOSS, that is pretty much how it works. Most of the companies you mention fall in to category (1) - they get money from else where and therefore can justify investing in FLOSS, because a big chunk of the work (R&D etc) for sections of their product line is done by someone else. The fact that they pay for some of the work to be completed is simply because they need someone to customise the FLOSS for their specific use, and to reuse code that is a partial fit. It's a total back-scratching scenario, but much of the development exists on a very precarious basis and the whim of the product line.