Maybe its better to say that "there is no need to be a superstar programmer" to work on OSS. The companies you list aren't known for hiring unskilled workers :-)

Indeed, but they're by far not the only ones working on OSS. They're simply the most recognizable. I've worked on OSS for companies with far less stellar track records when it comes to hiring.

It was a bit tongue in cheek - I have actually had paying gigs working on open source in the past.

But the point about where the money comes from stands - Google's money comes from their proprietary stuff.

I actually think something like Google is a pretty good way to produce open source software, by the way, but it's made possible by the money made elsewhere.

I'm not sure it was necessary to refer to the "I'm not good enough" thing. It really has little to nothing to do with your point. Because you've just undermined your own example (Guido Van Rossum / Python / Google) above, it weakens your position.

If I get it correctly, your point is that one requires copyright for open source software to be viable, by opening up a revenue stream to support the (free) open source part. This is true.

You can make money form open source on either:

1) Selling alternate, source closed licenses. (MySQL for example) 2) Selling support, consulting. (Red Hat, many others)

(1) requires copyright. (2) maybe less so, but without the open source licenses, which require copyright law to work, the software wouldn't exist to begin with either. Red Hat uses trademarks (which really are similar to copyright) to reinforce their position. So does Mozilla.

I know you can make money from open source. It's difficult though.

The title was something of an attempt at linkbait (albeit not a very good one), but also a way to point out that effectively, it is harder to get paid to work on open source software.

How are they similar? Trademarks just prevent people from using the branding, and just represents a minor hurdle (see CENTOS), while copyright (with a restrictive license) would prevent people using almost anything.

If trademarks are the main protection, the main barrier to entry is branding, not technology.

(IANAL)

Trademarks are copyright on the branding.

If trademarks are the main protection, the main barrier to entry is branding, not technology.

Yes. Isn't that obviously the case for open source software?