Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

jamesmcm.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#71

Post by Barrin92 »

rbecker wrote: post #69
Barrin92 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with this. The government should purchase software or services based on quality of the service provided and cost. It's nice if the software is open source, but it doesn't need to be just because tax payers pay for it. That's a total non-sequitur. If the government buys Mercedes cars it doesn't demand Mercedes to hand over the engineering designs for the cars. In fact in the entire military and intellige…

> I don't agree with this. Probably because you missed the "custom made" part. > secrecy and avoiding to give away software that is vital to national security. This would obviously be an exception and the code wouldn't be publicized. But that doesn't mean it can't be open-source to the government itself. > this would effectively prohibit companies who do proprietary work in the private sector to work with the governm…

So taking your example, the government could not use Windows unless Microsoft decides to open-source it? You realise how much infrastructure of the government runs on Windows right? And not just the operating system itself, but large parts of the software on top, you'd basically have to spend, I don't know dozens of billions to port it all to open-source software, just so you get the source code? Mind you that open-source software is not free, Redhat charges you money just the same for enterprise software

I don't think that's a reasonable use of taxpayer money.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#72

Post by dzhiurgis »

majkinetor wrote: post #11

Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever - citizens payed for it, gov employees were working with implementation team on shaping it, so it belongs to them. This doesn't have to be so for supportive domains such as databases but I would personally prefer that also (i.e. Postgresql instead Oracle db). There are many more reasons for this the…

I agree, just don't make it into something stupid like GPL.

Also just because you've released the source after it doesn't make more secure, valuable or whatever. It should be developed in public to begin with.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#74

Post by Avamander »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #72
majkinetor wrote: post #11

Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever - citizens payed for it, gov employees were working with implementation team on shaping it, so it belongs to them. This doesn't have to be so for supportive domains such as databases but I would personally prefer that also (i.e. Postgresql instead Oracle db). There are many more reasons for this the…

I agree, just don't make it into something stupid like GPL. Also just because you've released the source after it doesn't make more secure, valuable or whatever. It should be developed in public to begin with.

It's the only way to avoid large companies turning it into their own projects and selling that for a large markup, with very little benefit to the taxpayer and some extra user freedom infringement sprinkled on top.

Even something like LGPL allows taking freedoms from users and it could be blatantly seen from the Polish eDowod software issue (that's still ongoing).

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#75

Post by vlovich123 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #71
rbecker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't agree with this. Probably because you missed the "custom made" part. > secrecy and avoiding to give away software that is vital to national security. This would obviously be an exception and the code wouldn't be publicized. But that doesn't mean it can't be open-source to the government itself. > this would effectively prohibit companies who do proprietary work in the private sector to work with the governm…

So taking your example, the government could not use Windows unless Microsoft decides to open-source it? You realise how much infrastructure of the government runs on Windows right? And not just the operating system itself, but large parts of the software on top, you'd basically have to spend, I don't know dozens of billions to port it all to open-source software, just so you get the source code? Mind you that open-s…

For what it’s worth Microsoft regularly shares the source code for Windows with the American government.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#76

Post by rbecker »

Barrin92 wrote: post #71
rbecker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't agree with this. Probably because you missed the "custom made" part. > secrecy and avoiding to give away software that is vital to national security. This would obviously be an exception and the code wouldn't be publicized. But that doesn't mean it can't be open-source to the government itself. > this would effectively prohibit companies who do proprietary work in the private sector to work with the governm…

So taking your example, the government could not use Windows unless Microsoft decides to open-source it? You realise how much infrastructure of the government runs on Windows right? And not just the operating system itself, but large parts of the software on top, you'd basically have to spend, I don't know dozens of billions to port it all to open-source software, just so you get the source code? Mind you that open-s…

> So taking your example, the government could not use Windows unless Microsoft decides to open-source it?

Incorrect. The government could use Windows, even closed sourced. That is why I pointed out the "custom made" part you again missed. The open-source mandate would only apply to new software, written specifically for the government.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#77

Post by Avamander »

pc86 wrote: post #68
majkinetor wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bulgaria seems to have it: https://thepolicy.us/bulgaria-got-a-law-requiring-open-sourc...

When's the last time Bulgaria developed spy satellite or fighter jet software?

Whataboutism. There's a lot of non-militaristic software that could be FOSS.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#78

Post by paulryanrogers »

hannofcart wrote: post #63
mulmen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Postgres but it really does not do what Oracle does, even today and definitely not 15 years ago. My tax dollars paid for the M1 Abrams and the USS Enterprise but they won’t let me take either for a joyride. I still derive utility from those expenditures. It’s the same with software. If corruption is the problem I’m not sure how software licenses solve it.

Even assuming that Oracle does indeed have some features that Postgres does not (even with some extension), one will still need to make the case that _that_ specific Oracle feature is indispensable to a given government project.

It's more likely that Oracle's flagship DB has been 'certified' in some way. Even if such certification is developed by Larry's own lobbyists on his dime.

Not that certification is bad generally. Just that it often becomes a tool if regulatory capture.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#79

Post by paulryanrogers »

oska wrote: post #67
MattGaiser wrote: post #19

I work for a government software development team (At least for the next week). I have other friends in other governments on other teams. I can’t see a government being able to build generalized software or contribute effectively to it. Governments don’t tend to have people who say no to feature requests. The end result is not a generalized good solution, but extremely specific solutions built on a generalized platfo…

You're assuming the government controls the development process. That's not the objective (and frankly, FOSS licences works against control, as any party can fork the code). Rather, the suggestion is for governments to support FOSS developers, just as they do the arts community, without directly dictating what work they do. If they want a project extended in a certain way they can pay directly for that development, b…

Standards may help commoditize the more fundamental parts. It was the government that created ASCII and SQL after all. At least back when they cared about competition.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#80

Post by dzhiurgis »

Avamander wrote: post #74
dzhiurgis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, just don't make it into something stupid like GPL. Also just because you've released the source after it doesn't make more secure, valuable or whatever. It should be developed in public to begin with.

It's the only way to avoid large companies turning it into their own projects and selling that for a large markup, with very little benefit to the taxpayer and some extra user freedom infringement sprinkled on top. Even something like LGPL allows taking freedoms from users and it could be blatantly seen from the Polish eDowod software issue (that's still ongoing).

By selling those they are becoming a tax payer. You are basically arguing that there's limited amount of pie and we can't create more...
Post reply on HN