What a ridiculous conclusion you came to based on a single line from that page. The very next line says:
> We've made Cinder publicly available in order to facilitate conversation about potentially upstreaming some of this work to CPython and to reduce duplication of effort among people working on CPython performance.
> Our goal in making this code available is a unified faster CPython.
Facebook is a Python Software Foundation sponsor[1], and they sponsor every PyCon. I don't know why you got the idea that they don't contribute back.
Yeah but also... “If you want to upstream it, take it” it's not really something where ehi forked is working hard to send it back upstream patch by patch...
We've already upstreamed a lot of changes, including one that makes all coroutines faster in Python 3.10. The big-ticket items in Cinder would be big changes for CPython and need discussion about whether CPython even wants them. You don't just slap a C++ JIT into a bugs.python.org ticket. Opening Cinder is the first step in the conversation, and we're here for that work too. It's not just "if you want it, take it."
The PSF has not really sponsored CPython so far, and PyCons are for self promotion.
Often in OSS foundations the entire sponsorship money goes to people who don't deserve it.
Please do not attach any meaning to corporate sponsorship of foundations unless you can point to a specific project.
99% of CPython has been written by individuals without any compensation who don't get any credit. When a corporation gives money to non-productive bureaucrats everyone thinks they are helping open source. It is very sad.
Instagram upstreams a lot of changes to cpython, and most of the IG backend runs on services outside of python/Django.
I think you have the entitlement characterization backward though. It is entitled to think people should do work for free so that you can use the output of their work. IG is saying "we built this stuff, we're making it open source". They are not asking for or expecting anything from the open source community or you, but you are asking for a lot (millions of dollars worth of work) from them.
Exactly - totally pathetic. Seriously - what are you contributing in terms of engineering budget? Nothing? Then stop bothering contributors to open source.
> I think you have the entitlement characterization backward though. It is entitled to think people should do work for free so that you can use the output of their work.
That depends on the license, though. It's not entitlement to think that someone that builds on something open must release it back if the license requires it. That's one of the main differences between the BSD license and some GPL variants.
Years ago, Facebook maintained a Python SDK for their API. One day, with no warning, Facebook announced they would no longer support it because they didn't have the resources, and the repo was removed from their Github org, which caused a huge headache. IIRC, the community settled around someones fork.
A few months later, Facebook was a major sponsor of PyCon and they set up a recruitment booth. "We'll take your developers, but we won't support your ecosystem." Really rubbed me the wrong way.
not trying to throw sympathy here for Facebook, but the team that owned that Python SDK was probably not at all related to the PyCon recruitment booth. Big organization, at least someone was trying to do the right thing
CPython explicitly doesn't want these "improvements" CPython has explicitly declined performance boosting pull requests if they add too much complexity to the code base. The two project have very different goals.
This seems unnecessarily cynical. The large block of caveats seems mainly designed set expectations for potential users about the level of (total lack of) support.
Using (and modifying!) a piece of software in accordance with its license is not appropriation, it's the point of open source! Users - even corporate users - are free to make changes to suit their needs and aren't required to seek anyone's permission do so. All changes do not need be contributed back to the parent project, especially if (as the sibling comment notes) the changes don't align with the goals and values of parent.
That this hacked-up internal fork is even seeing the light of day is a Good Thing.
Open source was never meant for "corporate users". The spirit of open source was to create free alternative to expensive software so that disadvantaged people could also participate in a digital revolution.
The whole movement was then appropriated by big corporations when they found out the developers will do the R&D work for free (so corporations don't have to pay salaries and taxes on the work done) and then if any of the projects become valuable they can just take it and use for their own purposes, make money and never pay original developers anything whatsoever. Of course some companies felt guilty and offered jobs to those developers - but when you compare how much money they made on the software vs what kind of salaries they pay, it's pure simple exploitation.
The whole open source movement currently is designed to exploit developers and is a mean for companies to avoid paying for labour.
