I think there's a kernel of truth to what you're saying -- namely that big tech would be fine without oss and mostly builds out their own alternatives whenever necessary or desirable -- but it's definitely not true that BigTech "doesn't use OSS", "has internal versions", or "only use it for recruiting"
If BSD isn't open source then I don't know what is.
> I mean they're definitely free but have you ever tried submitting a patch for something that doesn't matter to FB/Google?
Well, you can always fork.
> Those projects function as free bug finding programs for their respective sponsors.
Yes, most companies engage with OSS strategically and not purely altruistically. But also:
1. Big tech uses OSS.
2. Big tech does not have internal versions of many OSS projects.
3. Big tech uses OSS for reasons other than just recruiting.
Pytorch and tensorflow are from FANG. Without OSS being a thing, they just keep using it without sharing it to the world.
Your examples are actually proving the opposite of your point :)
But OSS is a thing and they did share it with the world.
> Your examples are actually proving the opposite of your point :)
How so?
Despite the fact that Big Tech doesn't need OSS, it's not true that BigTech:
1. "doesn't use OSS", or
2. "has internal versions" [of any relevant OSS], or
3. "only use it for recruiting".
Hack isn't a counter-example; it's open source. The face that TensorFlow started a google isn't relevant to my point, nor is the fact that FB took the healm of Torch from academia a while ago.
Companies engage with OSS strategically, not altruistically. In other news, grass is green :) But there are many strategic reasons for having pieces of infra that are (1) OSS, (2) not duplicated internally, and (3) have motivations other than recruiting.
Although even if all OSS software that we've discussed here disappeared tomorrow, I know at least Google and Facebook are fine because they don't use any of it. They have their own internal versions that are better and aren't shared with the world.