I've always felt that public money should require public code. It makes total sense, unless you are a politician who wants to give favors and earn kickbacks.
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
71 points (96.1% liked)
Open Source
31118 readers
285 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Sane way that publicly funded science should be published and freely accessible.
It's a pipe dream, coz capitalism.
Capital interests certainly oppose the public domain, but I don't think it's a pipe dream, I think it's a policy change. Everything has swung in favor of private capital for long enough that it's time for the pendulum to swing back toward the public interest. I think the iron is hot, and right now is the time to start imaging and building better institutions.
Things are definitely moving in this direction, a number of changes at the federal level are happening in the US. The US and EU have many grant/funding programs where open publishing is a requirement, not an option.
Absolutely, and I'm glad someone else has thought the exact same thing! "Public money == public code".
When the government contracts for IT equipment, it comes with terms about maintenance, updates, and life cycle. It would require a much higher cost, especially in FTE funding, to ensure that open source code is viable and safe before deployment. I'm not implying that there are zero risks or errors with contracts, though they do provide some benefits.
to ensure that open source code is viable and safe before deployment.
It takes the same amount of time to develop closed source as open source software. So doea validating and certifying it.
Not sure why it should be more expensiv to put the moeny towards a OSS solution.
Because the government would have to hire the employees directly for this, versus the company that is contracted to do so.
No. You can write in the contract that the Software needs to be open.
Only with FLOSS hardware, software, and shared standards can nation states have digital sovereignty, compatibility, and security
This is not about sides and FLOSS, governments don't care about that. This is about consulting companies and vendors selling their BS and under the table money.
~~I disagree, those consultants and lobbyists are working for proprietary vendors.~~ If, instead, public grant money & public purchasing contracts were mandated to go towards free and open source technology, then the nation's technology infrastructure would eventually become free and open. Such a mandate would reduce the opportunity for corrupt contracts in the first place, ~~because it would be substantially more expensive to start a project from scratch if there are already viable solutions in the public domain~~ assuming wasteful & bloated contracts will be underbid by contracts that fork or add features to existing projects.
Public money for public code can dramatically reduce the waste caused by corrupt grants & contracts. If a project falls through, then at least the technology would be in the public domain for another organization to pick-up development. Currently, when a project falls through, it is usually a total loss because the technology remains intellectual property that can not be reused.
Just like with the Linux kernel, if a free and open source solution exists, it can be adapted to meet countless needs with far less effort and cost than starting from scratch with a proprietary solution.
. If, instead, public grant money & public purchasing contracts were mandated to go towards free and open source technology, then the nation’s technology infrastructure would eventually become free and open
Yes, and who pays the guys who have the decision power when it comes to FLOSS vs non-FLOSS? Those exact same proprietary vendors. There's nobody lobbying around for FLOSS because there's no money.
Ah, I see how what I wrote before didn't clearly express what I was thinking, and didn't address the issue of private contractors intentionally pushing for bloated contracts.
If public money for public code is mandated at the federal level, then private contractors would be bidding for work that ends up in the public domain. I am assuming that wasteful & bloated contracts will be underbid by contracts that fork or add features to existing projects. Either way, if the end result is in the public domain, then the project is still reusable.
I definitely don't believe that such a mandate would be easy to implement, or separate from a wider policy platform. I see private capital influencing government decisions as the crux of the problem with passing such a mandate. However, private capital influencing government decisions is an issue that unites many activists, organizations, and social movements. If FLOSS can be integrated into organizations and social movements pushing for institutional reform, then that might be a viable pathway toward meaningful policy change.
Very true. Just like how FLOSS money (Bitcoin) provides sovereignty to nation states who don't want to be subject to the policies of the US. And sovereignty to individuals who don't want to see the value of their currency eaten away by supply inflation or seized by their corrupt government. The US dollar imposes a tax on every person and country who uses it via its built-in inflation rate, even though many of those users had no opportunity to vote on US government policy.
USD, and other currencies like those maintained by France etc is also used as a tool to control entire economies and nations. It's traditional imperialism and mercantilism just with a few extra steps, extracting trillions of dollars of value from poorer nations and keeping them locked in cycles of poverty. The World Bank and other lenders literally insist that they not invest in things in education for their population.
There is a fantastic overview of how this works at the nation state scale here from the Human Rights Foundation https://youtu.be/7qRWurFaUD0?list=PLe0djdakvnFb0T-oZAeF49A-EZChise4n&t=14009 and another one on how France abuses its currency influence in Africa to keep the colonial legacy alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-u1Pjce4Lg&pp=ygUxaG93IGZyYW5jZSBjb250cm9scyBlbnRpcmUgZWNvbm9taWVzIGZyYW5jb2RvbGxhcg%3D%3D
A few countries have chosen to embrace Bitcoin, the blowback from the world bank etc has been very telling. They do not like the idea of a country that doesn't want to get stuck in a cycle of debt, restructuring, and subservience to the dollar.