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

Public Money, Public Code

publiccode.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 216 posts

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#141

Post by HWR_14 »

worik wrote: post #44
machinerychorus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was tangentially related to the covid app stuff so I can offer some insight there: most of those apps weren't built by the state. Google provided an open-source "base app" that could be customized by the states, but most states hired third-party contractors to build an app for them. I've worked in public sector and this is typical. the states can't open source it because they don't own it, they just pay a third-par…

> but most states hired third-party contractors to build an app for them. So the states paid the bills so can license the result any way they want. How can they pay for something and not own it? Sounds to me like there are deep corruption problems

> So the states paid the bills so can license the result any way they want. > > How can they pay for something and not own it?

Try buying a copy of Adobe Software[1], and then hosting the *.isos on your website. You paid for it, you should get to do it!

The short answer is, it costs more to buy 100% of the rights, and governments rarely do so.

[1] It'd have to be older Adobe Software, as modern Adobe Software is all monthly licenses, etc.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#142

Post by HWR_14 »

giobox wrote: post #21

I've often wondered if we need to radically change the State's relationship with the software it produces. As Robert Lessig famously observed, "code is law" in a world controlled by computers. There is increasingly a strong argument I feel in States directly employing software engineers much like they typically employ armies of civil servants to implement policy. Why is software treated as something to be outsourced…

> Why is software treated as something to be outsourced to a private sector company?

At least in America, one political party is devoted to outsourcing everything to the private sector, including prisons!

In the UK, at least one political party is trying to privatize and outsource everything. The succeeded with all the commuter rail in the 80s and now they want to do the same to the NHS.

Long story short, there is a lot of money to be made.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#143

Post by squeaky-clean »

bumper_crop wrote: post #122

Suppose you are on a committee where you are evaluating 3 different offers to build a website for your city. Bid A is for $10m, Bid B is for $9.5m, and Bid C is for $9m. The company that made offer B knows that they will likely lose the contract so they counter. "If you let us keep the source code and it remains private, we will bid $8.5m for the contract". Since all three vendors are offering equivalent service, and…

Just because code is released as open source doesn't mean you have any obligation to deal with feedback or PR's. You can throw it on a git hosting site and forget about it. You could gzip the entire source directory and throw it into an s3 bucket. You could burn it onto a CD and have it be available by mail-in request only with a fee for shipping.

> Expecting software to be open source is nice when there is an army of 10s of thousands of FAANG employees to constantly keep it up to date, but less so when there's limited people.

And being closed source makes keeping software up to date easier?

The website is asking for "legislation requiring that publicly financed software developed for the public sector be made publicly available under a Free and Open Source Software licence." So in response to your example of a company bidding lower for closed-source rights, you would just deny the illegal request. Same as if a company offering to construct a bridge was undercutting other contractors on the condition they be allowed to ignore certain expensive safety requirements.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#144

Post by worik »

_jal wrote: post #108
worik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but most states hired third-party contractors to build an app for them. So the states paid the bills so can license the result any way they want. How can they pay for something and not own it? Sounds to me like there are deep corruption problems

> Sounds to me like there are deep corruption problems I consider this to be a flavor of corruption, too, but it isn't, legally. It is the desired outcome for many, and for many more, maybe not the outcome they wanted, but the logical outcome of what they asked for. There has been a decades-long process in the US of pressuring governments to do less, to outsource more, to privatize, to move to "public-private partner…

Yes.

Corruption can be legal.

Like election/campaign financing in the USA

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#145

Post by johnfarrelldev »

reillyse wrote: post #49

Large consulting companies like Accenture have entire divisions of their business devoted to "government". These divisions make money by developing software for governments. It is very much against their interest for this software to be open source because 1) there is visibility into their performance and 2) they can't sell very similar software to the same government if everyone knows what software they've already b…

It's not the case for all consultancies though. The company I work for (much smaller than Accenture) does solely government contracting work and the majority of that code is open source. Every project I have personally been involved with for example has been open source.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#146

Post by golemiprague »

worik wrote: post #44
machinerychorus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was tangentially related to the covid app stuff so I can offer some insight there: most of those apps weren't built by the state. Google provided an open-source "base app" that could be customized by the states, but most states hired third-party contractors to build an app for them. I've worked in public sector and this is typical. the states can't open source it because they don't own it, they just pay a third-par…

> but most states hired third-party contractors to build an app for them. So the states paid the bills so can license the result any way they want. How can they pay for something and not own it? Sounds to me like there are deep corruption problems

No post body was provided.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#149

Post by pessimizer »

victorvosk wrote: post #79

I mean as nice as this sounds, our money is spent on all sorts of things we know nothing about. Should we all be provided with the schematics for F-35s?

> Should we all be provided with the schematics for F-35s?

They should be leaked to China as sabotage.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#150

Post by chii »

HWR_14 wrote: post #141
worik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but most states hired third-party contractors to build an app for them. So the states paid the bills so can license the result any way they want. How can they pay for something and not own it? Sounds to me like there are deep corruption problems

> So the states paid the bills so can license the result any way they want. > > How can they pay for something and not own it? Try buying a copy of Adobe Software[1], and then hosting the *.isos on your website. You paid for it, you should get to do it! The short answer is, it costs more to buy 100% of the rights, and governments rarely do so. [1] It'd have to be older Adobe Software, as modern Adobe Software is all…

> it costs more to buy 100% of the rights

of course. But this idea assumes that the contractors are selling the same software to multiple agents. Is that really the case?

Or are the agents already charging the maximum they could for the software, and yet, retain the rights themselves in the hopes of whiteboxing this software in the future for some other gov't agency?

Post reply on HN