SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:01PM
from the you-can't-use-logic-to-justify-things dept.
from the you-can't-use-logic-to-justify-things dept.
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is now running a campaign to require that publicly financed software developed for the public sector be made publicly available under a Free and Open Source Software licence. The reason being that if it is public money, the code should be public as well. General benefits include overall tax savings, increased collaboration, public service, and fostering innovation. Money is currently being wasted on code that cannot be modified or even studied, let alone redistributed. Code paid for by the people should be available to the people!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
FSF Campaign : Public Money Should Mean Public Code
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 44 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Thursday September 14 2017, @04:23PM (10 children)
It's odd that this wasn't the default position. It seems obvious. It's indicative of the balance of power of all decisions I guess.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2017, @06:12PM (9 children)
It isn't odd at all. "Public money" refers to nation-level funds, usually, but releasing something "to the public" releases it to the entire world. If you develop 10 public projects and your enemy develops 1 publicly funded but private project, your enemy has the result of 11 projects with much less resources spent. That's a good way to end up invaded and have your citizens be far worse off.
I'm not against the idea, I just don't think it's really practical with humans being what they are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Thursday September 14 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
Can't argue with your statement that "public" means nation-level; at least without resorting to sophistry which would invite a pointless and circular debate. So instead, let me suggest a different way of looking at the situation:
Why don't we strive to do things for the betterment of all humanity, and leave the "enemies" part for the unrepentantly bellicose?
Frankly, this artificial balkanisation along the lines of nation-states is immature - particularly when we are dealing with a good that is essentially free to reproduce. (Although I won't argue either with your insight that humanity often falls short of a gold standard.)
Let's leave the squabbling over resources to the stuff that can't be infinitely divided - food, land, water, etc - and share the stuff that can be given away, and given away, and given away - all without diminishing what we ourselves hold. Hopefully tomorrow I will (yet again) be the beneficiary of something someone else has invented.
Software freedom is a really good place to fight, and right now is the right time in history. Knowledge has always been shared to a large degree - but what makes software so particularly unique is the ease with which it can be disseminated - it doesn't even need face-to-face instruction or books. All that is required is the legal facility to copy - or rather making sure sharing doesn't get made illegal through the poisonous combination of outmoded thinking, lack of imagination, small-mindedness and just plain greed.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:50PM (1 child)
If you exclude military software (which the premise in TFA does) you are left with very little software that is really usable outside of the targeted sector it was designed for. Most public funded software is not designed for the "public sector" (however vaguely you want to define that.
So what are we discussing here? Software for reporting taxes? Software for registering for Obama Care?
Where do I go to get some? What would I find when I got there?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:43PM
That's not particularly difficult to answer. For starters, public servants should be using an entirely free software stack. So to get the ball rolling: goodbye Microsoft, goodbye Adobe.
You're not wrong insofar there is no trove of free software waiting at the bottom of the proverbial rainbow to solve all your government-interaction needs - but that may have more to do with the fact that we have been conned into paying licence fees rather than sponsoring software development. (Honourable mention in passing: open standards, too.)
The real effort for business (including government) is in the integration - not usually the software itself. The individual pieces may as well be free to facilitate reuse where possible. There is still a great deal of work to ensuring all the pieces fit together and integrate with existing systems which will keep programmers and administrators busy for years to come. Just the profits won't be floating ever-larger yachts belonging to software-company CEO-types. Those profits instead will pay dividends in perpetuity in the form of better software and reduced expenditure on now-unneeded licence fees.
Simply getting rid of Windows, Office and subscription-based services for everyday office work would be a great start.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Thursday September 14 2017, @07:49PM (1 child)
Good point. I didn't even consider the implication to national security and the well-being of the citizens in a hostile global environment.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday September 14 2017, @10:51PM
Military software was already ruled out.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:09PM
The reverse is true as well. All public projects elsewhere are ours to use.
That is the Public Domain, and it is available to everybody. I wouldn't worry so much about some code reuse in another country. Quite frankly, all the problematic code is going to be within AI, and *nobody* can read or write that code. Only the AIs can read and write it, and all we can do is use it and trust the AI isn't stupid. The truly scary information is old information by now. The making of nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, and even a great deal of biowarfare exists in the Public Domain. I can remember arguing here about whether or not the results of biowarfare research should be published at all, lest it enable bad actors to use it.
It's irrelevant anyways. All trust is gone, have been murdered by the avarice of industry and the paranoid delusions of control in the intelligence communities. The only code that can be trusted in the future by the people is code that was produced for them specifically, through their own financial contributions, and remains completely open and readable.
I'm operating on code that is free right now, and only a few binaries/blob bullshit is keeping me from true unfettered freedom. I have zero intentions of using hardware and software that isn't. Alexa/Siri/Cortana can suck my dick, and I don't participate in the Walled Garden platforms like Amazon/Apple. I would love a Cortana of my own, but that is highly unlikely since it requires the vast resources of the "cloud" to operate. The moment I can have neural hardware, or whatever runs that code, capable of a personal Cortana that actually answers to me alone, and zealously protects my information, I will use it.
Also regardless of the national security implications, I'm not giving some executive fuckface a lot of money he doesn't deserve, and investors a ton of money they don't deserve, out of my taxes. Totally sick of that corrupt fucking shit ruining science, and local governments thinking they can "own" the train schedules. If it is public money, then it goes to the Public Domain. Period. End of Discussion. The executives can go die in a fire with their proprietary code wishes, and those fascist fucks in government can keep trying to block my scraping attempts all they want. That information is free, and paid for by the public, which directly means that I can use it.
With human beings being what they are, Public Domain code and projects are needed to fight back against the more avaricious sociopathic pieces of shit that infest humanity now.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday September 14 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)
Not necessarily. If we're talking about weapon-targeting software, then you don't want your enemies to get a hold of it. But if we're talking agricultural tracking software, your "enemies" getting access to it might actually prevent them from starting a war with you.
The reason why is simple: wars don't get started arbitrarily. Wars are most often fought for access to resources. So any time you increase access to resources for other nation-states, those nation-states become less likely to attack you to steal your resources.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pdfernhout on Friday September 15 2017, @01:38AM
Exactly. I made a similar point here about the need for open source intelligence tools:
http://web.archive.org/web/20160508005451/http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/-The-need-for-FOSS-intelligence-tools-for-sensemaking-etc.-/76207-8319 [archive.org]
"This suggestion is about how civilians could benefit by have access to the sorts of "sensemaking" tools the intelligence community (as well as corporations) aspire to have, in order to design more joyful, secure, and healthy civilian communities (including through creating a more sustainable and resilient open manufacturing infrastructure for such communities). It outlines (including at a linked elaboration) why the intelligence community should consider funding the creation of such free and open source software (FOSS) "dual use" intelligence applications as a way to reduce global tensions through increased local prosperity, health, and with intrinsic mutual security. ...
As with that notion of "mutual security", the US intelligence community needs to look beyond seeing an intelligence tool as just something proprietary that gives a "friendly" analyst some advantage over an "unfriendly" analyst. Instead, the intelligence community could begin to see the potential for a free and open source intelligence tool as a way to promote "friendship" across the planet by dispelling some of the gloom of "want and ignorance" (see the scene in "A Christmas Carol" with Scrooge and a Christmas Spirit) that we still have all too much of around the planet. So, beyond supporting legitimate US intelligence needs (useful with their own closed sources of data), supporting a free and open source intelligence tool (and related open datasets) could become a strategic part of US (or other nation's) "diplomacy" and constructive outreach."
Another essay I wrote related to the broader topic of public funding:
http://pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html [pdfernhout.net]
See also Alfie Kohn's book "No Contest" The Case Against Competition" for a broader exploration of the benefits of cooperation.
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @09:58PM
So, to avoid the enemy residing in other nations you become slave of the enemy residing in yours.