"Small companies don't have the resources"... that's some backward thinking right there.
By failing to contribute, small companies cost themselves money very quickly. How can a small business afford to live in a world of un-maintainable forks, patches and tech debt?
Only large companies can afford to maintain private forks of FOSS. Small companies have to give back, or they will simply disappear.
I can't count how many times I've submitted a patch only to hear my supervisors complain that I made a contribution to the thing that makes the business profitable.
I know you are deploying irony but due to competing interpretations I can't figure out its intent. Do you mean the supervisors do complain or they don't?
Company A and Company B both use the same FOSS application. Company A has internal devs that add/fix the FOSS, but keep those updates internal. This gives Company A an advantage Company B does not get. Company A managers recognize this, and feel that since the updates were made on company time, they do not have to provide that to the rest of the world. Company A devs commit their updates to the repository, and now Company A mangers feel like they have given away work product for free. Lots of way pointy hair bosses to be upset in this scenario.
I think it more accurately depends on the nature of the project and the nature of the patch. Not every patch is "technical debt" [itself a term that often encourages incorrect conclusions due to the debt metaphor not fitting perfectly] and not every amount of maintenance is scary. People react this way in fear before they understand the work.
But sure, it's a good idea to send patches upstream.
By failing to contribute, small companies cost themselves money very quickly. How can a small business afford to live in a world of un-maintainable forks, patches and tech debt?
Only large companies can afford to maintain private forks of FOSS. Small companies have to give back, or they will simply disappear.