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This discussion has been archived.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.
Logicians have but ill defined
As rational the human kind.
Logic, they say, belongs to man,
But let them prove it if they can.
-- Oliver Goldsmith
(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.