> In more situations than not, the paying company would then ask for and prefer that I maintain all copyrights for all the changes and that I not make it publicly noticeable that this was in fact paid for by this company. For the casual outsider, it appears as if I just had a period of extra motivation and energy and one fine day delivered this feature.<p>> Why companies would not want to use their sponsoring an Open Source project for marketing purposes and good will always baffle me. I have heard it explained by things like that the company does not want their competitors to so obviously spot that they use this project, but that seems like an odd and weak argument.<p>Thoughts? My guess is because if it becomes known they will pay for feature requests on open source, they might worry other open source projects will ask for money for features they would have added for "free" otherwise.
Daniel is worth following on the Fediverse if you have an account. He shares interesting stories from maintaining curl such as one where a user raised an issue with curl but it turned out that curl was correctly identifying that the users antivirus was acting as a MITM on their network: <a href="https://mastodon.social/@bagder/109880784239388087" rel="nofollow">https://mastodon.social/@bagder/109880784239388087</a>
Discussed within the last year:<p><i>Uncurled – running and maintaining Open Source projects for three decades</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31410042" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31410042</a> - May 2022 (9 comments)
another interesting : <a href="https://polite.technology/preview" rel="nofollow">https://polite.technology/preview</a><p>// polite.technology is a free text under the CC0 license originally penned by Tom MacWright<p><i>"This is a book about the social interactions and situations that are the underpinnings of the open source world. It's about how humans collaboratively create software."</i>