> Who in their right mind would ever employ [Matt DeVillier]? Well, apparently, AMD, and that’s why we banned all of their products for life

Generally open source code is worth more than propietary code, since the final result, that now an open source solution to a problem exists when it didn't before, is more valuable than if merely a commercial solution exists that you have to license and hope the vendor continues to like you and provide what you want in the way of functionality etc, and doesn't charge too much per seat/cpu/whatever.

The fact that in the end the code is free for everyone doesn't mean it has no value and it wasn't worth paying to have it brought into existence or to have something existing be improved or customized.

For me the value (the amount I'd be willing to pay as a customer, or the amount I'd be willing to work for as a developer) for new code is:

Least valuable: proprietary and the author retains the rights and the customer only gets a license to use a binary. As a developer I need less money because I get to lkeep the product and sell it again to others. As a customer I'm willing to pay less for the same reason, all I get is a limited use copy.

Middle valuable: open source. customer pays to have it written but once written, there are no licenses or limits other than copyleft which is just a formalized way to enforce the limit that there shall be no limits, everyone can use it forever with no worries or limits or serial numbers etc. As a developer I need middle because I don't get to sell the final result to anyone and need to make a reasonable labor rate for the simple hours of actual work. But I don't need more than that because at least I do get to retain the same use of the final result as everyone else, and my name is on something public which is valuable. As a customer I'm willing to pay more for the perpetual unencumbered use of open source than for any normal license. The fact that it's free for any number of machines forever after that is worth a lot up front. If it doesn't already exist, and I need it, then it's worth spending my own time to create it, or paying my own employees to create it, or paying an independant developer to create it.

most valuable: proprietary and customer gets to own (all copyright) the final result. I don't particularly like this model but there is no denying that if you wantto operate this way, it's obviously more valuable to own the copyright to something than not to. As a developer, if you want me to work on something that you then get the copyright to, where even I can't use it or re-sell it, then you are going to pay me a lot for that, because I get nothing but the one time payment and none of the long tail value from direct usage nor sales to others. It's like the difference between a print and the original artwork. If an artist takes a month to make a painting, they might be willing to sell you a print for $500 but the original might be $50,000.

The name thing is just a slight variation on that. If you want me to create something and then don't even want me to put my own name on it and instead let you put your name on it, well of course I'm not going to do that without some compensation to make it worth it. If you don't want to pay for that, you can write your own and then put your own name on that.

The fact that the final result is open source doesn't matter until after the thing exists in the first place. It's free for everyone after that, but before that it doesn't exist at all and needs to be created somehow.

If it's like coreboot where it already exists in a generic form that still needs to be customized and integrated before you can actually use it, doesn't really change anything. If you can do that work yourself, the open source license means you are free to do that work yourself and you don't owe anyone a dime or need any other permission to do it. Go ahead and customize coreboot for your motherboard, for free. Have a ball. No one stopping you.

If you can't, and need someone else to do it for you, then of course you have to pay them just like you'd have to pay someone to set up a web server to host all free linux and nginx software.

If you want to put your own name on the final result and not the actual authors, you can, but why should those authors do that work for you? The cost isn't "twice as much", it's the other way around, if you let the authors sign their work, then they give you a huge 50% discount just for letting them slap the dealership name plate on the rear bumper.

Those same authors are still fully embodying the open source ethos because the product itself is free and unencumbered. You don't need to pay them for your copy at all. Go ahead and use it yourself by doing the integration and customization work yourself instead of paying anyone else.

What do you think the authors are doing wrong exactly? Valuing their time and expertise too highly? Do you think that their time is not worth $350/hour for this work? What do you base that belief on? Can you do it for less for example? If so, then go ahead and do so. Surely you will eat their lunch and show everyone how it's done. Or if not you, then surely many others if the rate is unreasonable. Coding is all remote-work-able so the entire world is available to do it. That's a large number of hungry and skilled coders to compete with. Surely if their asking rate was too high, then they must have no customers and this customer in the article has 50 other firms they can call to do the work for $100/hour. Not sure why they bother complaining with an article like this in the first place since it's so easy to get just anyone to do the work and it's worth so little. Just go down to the local hardware store and grab some $50/day construction day-laborers easy peasy.

Especially when you may well have been handed a pile of trash, that you need to rewrite anyway to make workable.

I'm not surprised that all the prices quoted were on the very high side, especially factoring in a difficult customer.