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

21–30 of 216 posts

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#21

Post by giobox »

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 to a private sector company? Why can't we have "civil programmers" who contribute to an ever growing body of public code just as the legislative process contributes to an ever growing body of laws. This body of civil programmers (terrible name but hey) could also work hand in hand with the open source community, letting stakeholders (citizens) contribute too.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#22

Post by WaitWaitWha »

postalrat wrote: post #13
Maxburn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, I was only thinking about outside contractors.

Contractors are no different. Typically you don't get to sell the software someone else paid for. If you want to sell it then develop it on your own.

Right, and I am all for that to remain.

This reads way broader, as you describe it "develop it on your own", but can sell it only once to public sector.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#23

Post by Findecanor »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #6
Maxburn wrote: post #3

If I was the software developer forced into this I'd just raise my price knowing I can no longer sell it elsewhere, IF I even agreed to it. That's going to hurt tax payers. It's a catchy title but just doesn't take more than a moments thought to see how it's going to backfire.

I believe this is directed more towards government-developed software, not explicitly contractors.

Although, where I live (in a well-off EU country dominated by socio-liberal politics) I've never heard of a governmental organisation developing their own code (outside of the defence department).

When there is a need for a system, there is a public procurement process wherein contractors submit bids, and the "best" bid wins. ("best" by some criteria, usually price)

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#24

Post by archontes »

Maxburn wrote: post #3

If I was the software developer forced into this I'd just raise my price knowing I can no longer sell it elsewhere, IF I even agreed to it. That's going to hurt tax payers. It's a catchy title but just doesn't take more than a moments thought to see how it's going to backfire.

If you develop the software completely at your own expense, and then sell the product to the government, fine.

If the government is paying for the development, the government should own the product of that work.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#25

Post by hamandcheese »

postalrat wrote: post #10

The state I lived in developed one of those covid tracking apps. I asked for the source code and was told it wasn't available and would never be. I talked to people working on other software developed for the state and they all think that software shouldn't be public. It seems crazy to me that taxpayers pay for this software but it doesn't belong to them. Knowing what I do know I gotta wonder if it's just about those…

Open sourcing code safely also isn’t free. So unless something was developed in the open from the outset, I doubt it ever will become open source (unless mandated by law).

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#26

Post by machinerychorus »

postalrat wrote: post #10

The state I lived in developed one of those covid tracking apps. I asked for the source code and was told it wasn't available and would never be. I talked to people working on other software developed for the state and they all think that software shouldn't be public. It seems crazy to me that taxpayers pay for this software but it doesn't belong to them. Knowing what I do know I gotta wonder if it's just about those…

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-party to build+operate it for them. This is touted as "small govt", but it really just makes things less efficient. The total number of people involved stays the same.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#27

Post by AlbertCory »

Totally right. The same applies to publicly funded research (goodbye, Elsevier), and even to court filings (goodbye, Pacer).

As for postalrat's comment: there is a certain bureaucratic mindset that wants "their" stuff secret. Even when there's no possible justification. "You can't get in trouble for saying No" is their philosophy.

Example: on Nextdoor (home of the dumbest people on the web), I stopped getting my daily email digest. Since this happens to be my ideal way to get Nextdoo, I emailed Support, and their person insisted that they were going out, and I should contact my email provider (they were not going to Spam, if that's your guess).

I asked "how do you know? did you look in the Sent folder?" and he/she said "we're unable to share any information about our internal tools."

Ooh, it's a SECRET! I went through Twitter and found out they were running an experiment.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#28

Post by richardwhiuk »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #6
Maxburn wrote: post #3

If I was the software developer forced into this I'd just raise my price knowing I can no longer sell it elsewhere, IF I even agreed to it. That's going to hurt tax payers. It's a catchy title but just doesn't take more than a moments thought to see how it's going to backfire.

I believe this is directed more towards government-developed software, not explicitly contractors.

If it only applies to that case, it's possible there will be a perverse incentive for the public sector to outsource the code development.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#29

Post by EMIRELADERO »

postalrat wrote: post #10

The state I lived in developed one of those covid tracking apps. I asked for the source code and was told it wasn't available and would never be. I talked to people working on other software developed for the state and they all think that software shouldn't be public. It seems crazy to me that taxpayers pay for this software but it doesn't belong to them. Knowing what I do know I gotta wonder if it's just about those…

I don't know if it exists for where you live, but you might be able to make use of a public information law (FOIA-like)

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#30

Post by AlotOfReading »

Maxburn wrote: post #17
AlotOfReading wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still sell the code, you just have to use something like the Red Hat subscription model after the first contract. This is how a substantial part of the tech market already operates. How does it 'backfire' here?

Why would I change my entire business model to deal with this? Just skip this customer and move on.

Because "this customer" would presumably be the government. If you're a government contractor bidding on RFPs, not meeting the basic requirements is probably a bad way to stay in business. No one's forcing you to do it, though.
Post reply on HN