Live data from Hacker News

European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

lwn.net

81–90 of 380 posts

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still - I hope EU will just have a decent program financing or contributing in any shape or form to development of OSS. I think at this point we're beyond that, we already have these programs and they seem to be expanding. EU-STF is one such example, then there are other organizations supported by the EU in various ways, that also helps fund OSS, like NLnet Foundation.

Do you honestly believe that all of these funding programs are beyond the point of "decency"? If we leave aside all of the bureaucratic bs, political connections and corruption when it comes to obtaining these funds (for the most cases), how do you attract experts in the field with 50k EUR grants?

> Do you honestly believe that all of these funding programs are beyond the point of "decency"?

Yes, they currently fund people working full-time on contributing to FOSOS. If that's no "beyond decency", I don't know what is. Are you expecting these people to end up flush with cash, or what's the issue?

> how do you attract experts in the field with 50k EUR grants?

Because most of us experts actually care about what we work with, not how much we get paid. Once you reach a certain level of income so you're financially safe, increasing that generally doesn't increase your happiness that much, so most of us focus on being fulfilled in other ways, mainly about caring about the work we do.

As someone who used to work full-time in FOSS, it is a great feeling to contribute to something not just because it pays, but because it actually improves something in real life. I can't speak for everyone, but this is still mostly why I do FOSS.

I think fundamentally there seems to be a difference between "European FOSS" and "American FOSS" where the latter focuses more on basically CV-driven FOSS projects, with the hope of the FOSS leading to you somehow getting paid more in some for-profit company. While European FOSS seems to mainly be concerned about making things sustainable, grow a healthy community, and remaining FOSS long-term.

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#82

I 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…

[deleted]

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#83
post #9
post #3

To me this is the most amazing thing people that would turn themselves inside out against communism/socialism because of the lies they have been told. When it actually comes down to it are all for communism ie open source

Open source is not communism. Communism would entail that we collectively own Linux, which we don't. It's private property, and if we want to use the code, we need to abide by its licensing terms. Licensing terms that are built upon the existence of copyright, a concept that allows for private ownership of intellectual property.

The licensing terms exist as a patch on copyright. If copyright law were fixed, we wouldn't need those terms at all.

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#84
post #79

I 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…

> 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…

>The spirit is good, but that software has cost good money to produce, and universities are dependent on external revenue

Obviously, but most of university research - at least in Europe - is funded by public money. The idea is that research funded by public money should be public by default, unless there's a reason to do otherwise.

>Also, should e.g. an American company have access to software produced by an Italian university?

Yes, of course.

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#85

All the European Commission is interested in is getting software cheaper or for free. If they were truly interested in freeing themselves from non-EU software, thereby preventing potential interference from (mostly) the US, they wouldn’t have chosen the path of soften the GDPR - that move mainly made the big tech happier. And don’t even get me started with Chat Control.

Not quite. Harshness of regulations like GDPR is perhaps the primary reason why European tech entrepreneurs overwhelmingly choose to emigrate to the US when given choice.

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#86
The EU has Schleswig-Holstein (a German state) as an example; office software and email replaced by open source alternatives. Look overthere, I would say. But overthere is a politician who actually understands what he is talking about.

I don't feel the need to provide governments/politicians with open source software who think like this: "open source – which is a public good to be freely used".

Start understanding how this works, because your American and Chinese counterparts do a better job at this.

By the way, don't come lazily asking for input. Go out proactively and find the answers yourself.

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a grant in 2023 which was supported by the European Comission. So I think the topic itself isn't entirely unknown. https://nlnet.nl/project/Forgejo/

From https://nlnet.nl/fediversity > We are seeking project proposals between 5.000 and 50.000 euro's — which should get you on your way. Am I the only one to think this is completely ridiculous amount of money? So, you want me to leave my very well paid job to innovate for the sake of EU competitiveness but you don't to invest more than 50k EUR (max grant). And as an individual you don't even stand a chance so this 5…

No, they don't want to you leave your very well paid job for this grant, they want to chuck a few bounties at some FOSS projects and pay for some people to attend hackathons or conferences if they can fill in a form giving sufficiently compelling reasons. How dare they!

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#88

All the European Commission is interested in is getting software cheaper or for free. If they were truly interested in freeing themselves from non-EU software, thereby preventing potential interference from (mostly) the US, they wouldn’t have chosen the path of soften the GDPR - that move mainly made the big tech happier. And don’t even get me started with Chat Control.

Not quite. Harshness of regulations like GDPR is perhaps the primary reason why European tech entrepreneurs overwhelmingly choose to emigrate to the US when given choice.

> Harshness of regulations like GDPR is perhaps the primary reason why European tech entrepreneurs choose to emigrate to the US when given choice.

What are those harshnesses?

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#89
post #79

I 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…

> 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 them. In fact, that is basically what the US does and it has been wildly successful and relegated the EU to being a technical backwater trying to figure out how to get out from under the US's commercial dominance.

> Also, should e.g. an American company have access to software produced by an Italian university?

Yes. Knowledge is for everyone. Even the Americans. Trying to hold back the progress of the entire species because the US knows how to pump out software is a remarkably myopic strategy.

Re: European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

#90

I 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.

Post reply on HN