I don't mind it if people fund and contribute to OpenSSL. Improved software is improved software whether you prefer another fork or not.
However, I will personally refrain from funneling money into any project if it is not clear that money will make a difference. It's like donating to charities who cannot ensure the money actually ends up in the right place and actually helps the lives of the people who they (cl)aim to help. I'm more likely to donate to projects that have proven their worth, like OpenBSD. The proof, hard work, should come first. Donations might follow.
> The proof, hard work, should come first. Donations might follow.
Part of the problem with funding open source is that an agent acting only in their own short term interests is going to say: "ok, someone already did the hard work, the results are free!", and won't donate anything.
That's not a problem with funding open source. That might be a problem with getting money if you start doing open source and expect money in return.
What other people do (or don't do) doesn't really matter. If I refuse to donate to a project, and Apple makes a non-free derivative of that project, that project is still free and you can still fund it.
It's very much a problem with funding open source because no one pays for the developers, leading to stuff like openssl in its current state, that everyone depends on, but no one pays for!
I agree with your assessment of who to donate to, by the way, I'm just saying that the whole thing is a bit difficult.
However, I will personally refrain from funneling money into any project if it is not clear that money will make a difference. It's like donating to charities who cannot ensure the money actually ends up in the right place and actually helps the lives of the people who they (cl)aim to help. I'm more likely to donate to projects that have proven their worth, like OpenBSD. The proof, hard work, should come first. Donations might follow.