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

41–50 of 216 posts

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#41

Post by Rygian »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #20
postalrat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your incentive is that you are being paid.

Imagine "Microsoft Office"-complexity software developed specifically for public sector. Then, sold to public sector once, then everyone else is free to use it. Would Microsoft still develops Office? Unlikely.

Why would that be unlikely? If Microsoft's business model was to get paid to develop Office, then of course they would.

(Obviously, Microsoft's actual business model is to capture and lock in, that's what makes your example look odd.)

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#42

Post by nickff »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #19

Why do software developers always shoot themselves in the foot with regard to their economic value? Governments pay all the time for development of technology that they buy, but that doesn't mean that the IP is released. For example, the government paid Boeing to develop transport aircraft. However, that does not mean that all the drawings/plans/etc for the aircraft are made public. The government is buying a set of…

>"However, that does not mean that all the drawings/plans/etc for the aircraft are made public."

The (US) government actually tried the approach of purchasing a few initial runs and the plans for some missiles, but the results were bad. Initial development costs were high, reliability was low, and manufacturability was poor.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#44

Post by worik »

machinerychorus wrote: post #26
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-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

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#45

Post by Zigurd »

machinerychorus wrote: post #26
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-par…

Contract software development is nearly always work-for-hire. To not own the result of what is in common practice work-for-hire is terrible contract management. Imagine a road paving company claiming the state doesn't own the road they just paved.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#46

Post by rozularen »

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…

I think it's mainly because of money? Sure if there were any existing public open source infrastructure people would be more willing to contribute for free.

I think this brings the open source developers income issue to the table which is getting better but at its own pace.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#47

Post by tapland »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #20
postalrat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your incentive is that you are being paid.

Imagine "Microsoft Office"-complexity software developed specifically for public sector. Then, sold to public sector once, then everyone else is free to use it. Would Microsoft still develops Office? Unlikely.

The money is in the maintenance agreements.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#48

Post by Zigurd »

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 tried that with a private sector customer you would get nowhere.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#49

Post by reillyse »

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 built.

These are the real vested interests preventing this code becoming open source and why lots of government agencies who do their own development are perfectly happy to release the code or access to their APIs.

Re: Public Money, Public Code

#50

Post by bartvk »

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

I don't see what corruption has to do with it. I'm a subcontractor and usually the contractual terms are dictated by my clients. If I get the chance however, I put forth my terms and these say that I'm the author of the code and thus the copyright holder.
Post reply on HN