Jim Zemlin’s blunt 2011 argument was aimed at businesses and downstream projects that rely on open-source software while keeping useful changes to themselves—not at ordinary people who simply use Linux or other open-source programs. His point was that sharing development and maintenance upstream can serve a user’s own business interests.
What Jim Zemlin meant by “give back”
Julie Bort’s Network World article, published August 30, 2011, reported Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin’s criticism of organizations that take from open-source projects without contributing useful work back upstream. The article’s date and summary are preserved in InfoWorld’s index entry; a contemporaneous LXer excerpt also records the central argument.
“Give back” in this context means contributing improvements to the project that maintains the software, rather than carrying those changes only in a private or downstream version. The distinction matters: Zemlin’s criticism concerned organizations whose work depends on open-source software and who may be duplicating maintenance effort, not every individual who downloads or uses it.
Why upstream contribution can make business sense
The economic case in the preserved excerpts is straightforward. A business that maintains its own version must bear the work of keeping that version current and functional. If useful improvements are accepted upstream, development and maintenance can be shared with the broader project instead of remaining solely the downstream organization’s responsibility.
#1 Best Overall
A later scholarly footnote citing Bort’s article reproduces Zemlin’s fuller explanation: “You’re an idiot because the whole reason you’re using open source is to collectively share in development and collectively maintain the software. Let me tell you, maintaining your own version of Linux ain’t cheap, and it ain’t easy.” The quotation is preserved in that 2012 scholarly footnote, rather than verified here against the original Network World page.
This is an argument for aligning a company’s engineering practices with its dependence on a shared project. It does not establish a universal rule that every change should be accepted upstream or that every organization will save money by contributing; the available account supplies no cost comparison or study figure.
Rank #2
Who the headline’s insult was aimed at
The headline’s “idiot” wording is deliberately provocative shorthand, not a claim that casual users owe code contributions simply for using open-source software. Contemporaneous discussion clarified that the comment was not directed at end users; a Slashdot result records that distinction.
- Individual users: The cited clarification says the remark was not aimed at people who simply use the software.
- Businesses and downstream projects: The criticism applies to entities that rely on a project, develop or maintain a separate version, and keep potentially useful work outside the upstream effort.
What the 2011 report does—and does not—show
This is a historical news-and-opinion item, not a current Linux Foundation policy statement. The surviving summaries support the central point about shared development and the cost and difficulty of maintaining a private Linux version, but the original Network World article text was not directly available in the cited material. No named statistic or empirical study figure is preserved; InfoWorld’s seven-minute label is a reading-time estimate, not evidence about open-source economics.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
