The idea is sound but the feeling of hate is perhaps strong. It’s understandable there’s no incentive to pay for open source software, and doing so would be seen as an unnecessary allocation of resources that could better be allocated elsewhere.

Given this understanding, the best away to achieve the desired outcome is to get creative about aligning incentives at the top of org structures where resources are allocated.

▲

nickff a day ago | parent [-]

>”Given this understanding, the best away to achieve the desired outcome is to get creative about aligning incentives at the top of org structures where resources are allocated.”

I really don’t understand what this means; could you please explain it? It comes off as ‘mushy’ consulting-speak to me.

▲

shermantanktop a day ago | parent | next [-]

It’s a mini-language that you don’t have to learn unless you work with executive types. But it does mean something. In particular it means “activity at the grassroots is wasted effort when the real decision maker with the money is not aware or in agreement with the direction.”

	▲	MrDarcy a day ago \| parent [-]
		“Show me the incentive, I’ll show you the outcome.” -Charlie Munger

▲

manphone a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Make the execs bonus based on open source success and then it will be the most funded thing of all time.

▲

Terr_ a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Cynical read: "Executives are short-sighted and won't care unless the right thing somehow personally makes them money."