Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't care about that as a consumer. Until this happens: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243075 . Or, worse, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114 or this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46322556 . Megacorps don't care about your requests for support. > People are very willing to pay for that, but there is no such FLOSS offering as far as I know https://www.debian.org/consultants/ https:/…
This all seems like enterprise solutions. As a consumer, I shouldn't have to look at a list of consultants, as if I was trying to find support for a heavy industrial machine. FLOSS or non-FLOSS, there is no real European consumer offering for an operating system. That should be the starting point for people who want a thriving European IT industry. It could very well be based on Linux or whatever. But consumers need…
European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
251–260 of 380 posts
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
> software that is funded by public means, such as from universities or institutions I think that might be the wrong approach, at least in this day and age. The spirit is good, but that software has cost good money to produce, and universities are dependent on external revenue. It's not unreasonable to charge for the things they produce. Also, should e.g. an American company have access to software produced by an Ita…
> It's not unreasonable to charge for the things they produce. When it is funded publicly it certainly is. A key feature of the university research system is that it is where people are supported without the expectation that their work is going to be commercially useful in any near-term time frame. If something is going to be commercially valuable then people should develop it in the private sphere. Nothing stopping…
> A key feature of the university research system is that it is where people are supported without the expectation that their work is going to be commercially useful in any near-term time frame
Idk where you got that idea from, but it's not an accurate picture since the mid 1980s. Yes, there is "fundamental" research, which is mostly a label for commercially not that interesting work (and cannot be expected to yield much open source anyway), but short-term project work and third-party funding are big. Also, much of the research is done with an eye towards profit, certainly in the medical and tech sector. And in the US, universities rely on a lot of private money.
> Knowledge
Knowledge isn't OSS. This (part of the) thread is specifically about (usable) software.
> the progress of the entire species
Them's big words.
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That doesn’t mean “free as in beer,” but “free as in speech.” what the hell does that mean
Today, we take the term "open source" for granted, but this wasn't always the case. There wasn't a single, universally accepted term to describe software that was freely shareable. "Free software" was one of the terms used, but it wasn't clear to non-programmers how this was different from proprietary software that was downloadable without having to pay for it. If you're not a programmer anyway, how should one type o…
thanks this is very clear !
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#254Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the argument is basically: because taxes, and only taxes, paid for something somewhere, it should be free for everybody everywhere? Ah wait, you're somebody else. Why the somewhat unhinged attack on Europe? Because Europe is getting US tech for free?
30 years ago, one of the things we were all naively hoping for was that a globally connected network would help to reduce the tribalism, obsolete these "American money" and "European bits" and "Chinese protocols" ideas and stop all the cross-border fighting over what's mine and what's yours. When a piece of software has contributors from 50 countries, how could it "belong" to one country? Obviously we are in an even…
It might have been a bit naive, and very much reliant on a more open, more liberal, and less neo-liberal, international order than we have right now. Greed and power are not (<-edit: I had skipped that bit) conducive to such ideals.
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you have a specific example in mind or speaking generally. What I am saying is that generally, private companies abuse the government money when they can. Just like private companies enshittify their products to make more money. It's all about making money. Why are governments getting bad software from companies? For the same reason users are getting bad software as well. The software industry produces mo…
My point is that "private companies abuse the government money when they can" is well-known fact. Thus, government as a customer should make everything possible to buy software on competitive market basis. If govt chose easy way to blindly gave shitton of money to some company with vague acceptance criteria and got bad result in return - this is 100% govt fault.
My point is that they are genuinely trying. I have been in contact with such people, and they are not idiots.
They have government money that they want to spend wisely. And experts from private companies convince them that they can solve their problems.
If the government employee was the expert, they would not have to contact the private companies in the first place. The private companies know that, and they abuse their dominant position by convincing (sometimes downright lying) to the government employees.
It is a very difficult position to be in. It's not about buying a car and being able to just test it. Many times the government funding goes for some kind of R&D. Which makes it easy for the experts to bullshit them and never produce anything useful.
Those who say that it's 100% the government fault should maybe try to go work there. They could truly help their country, if they could actually do better. But chances are that they can't.
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brandon Eich resigned.
Due to discrimination and bullying. There goes freedom of expression out of the door. Fortunately that crazy ship has long sailed and nowadays he'd have enough support to resist and publicly voice his opinions without personal attacks.
I think there is a very large difference between citizen activism (i.e. boycotts which can lead to resignations) and government authoritarianism. I have no problem with people exercising their right to free speech - including both Brandon Eich, and Firefox users.
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#258Europe does not need more open source, it needs its own healthy and competitive software industry. It doesn't matter if the email platform a government uses is open source, but it should be able to pick a local alternative. It does not matter if the e-ID or payments app is running on an open source mobile OS, but it should be possible to run it on a non-US one. Policy may help the European software industry, at least…
It's not that simple. The Dutch government uses a commercial service for their digital id, and now that company is going to be sold into American hands.
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#259I read the call for evidence. I have a silly question: Where does one go to supply that evidence?
Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source
#260I agree with others here that focusing your eyes on _using_ open source is, at least, an incomplete view of the problem. What we (European software engineers) have been arguing, is that software that is funded by public means, such as from universities or institutions, ought to be made fully public, including ability to tweak. Thinking that open source software will help solve your budget and/or political problem is…
> … public good to be freely used, modified, and redistributed That doesn’t mean “free as in beer,” but “free as in speech.” I do understand the potential for misinterpretation, but one could easily add “after paying for it” and those freedoms don’t change.
Well if let’s say local government like municipalities are paying for school software where you can check your child ren grades.
If there is API I should be able to make my own mobile app to access data or use other app.
Providers push ads and do shitty stuff to block any and all 3rd party access.
If it is that bad business just go away.