Comment by fluoridation
4 hours ago
That's an assumption in the exact opposite direction. GP is assuming that if someone commits while employed by a company then that company paid completely for that commit, while you're assuming that in that case the company "probably" didn't pay for the whole commit.
Either way, the article's conclusion seems to be insufficiently supported.
I actually specifically didn’t state it one way or the other, just highlighting the potential for undercounting. I think there’s some potential for overcounting if you assume employer paid for commits, but less so if you constrain to those employed to work on the Linux kernel - I don’t know if many people would be working “spare time” on the same thing they’re getting paid for.