8 ms·
Yeah, absolutely. We make that argument often. In fact, the software we open-source is technically supposed to be released as public domain (as in, no license a
by thewopr 10y ago
Yeah, absolutely. We make that argument often. In fact, the software we open-source is technically supposed to be released as public domain (as in, no license applied) and often is if people are doing things right.
But that doesn't mean it has to be hosted and released online. Many agencies work under the "not going to release anything until we get a FOIA request" model. Just because it is public domain doesn't mean it is public.
- squidfood 10y agoWell (as another Federal coder), one problem is the unfunded mandate issue. If this comes with resources to maintain public repos and updates, sure. Otherwise, if someone emails me I share the latest snapshot but only as my time and duties permit.
- galdosdi 10y agoHow about just using github, like many federal agencies do? (https://government.github.com/community/#us-federal https://government.github.com/community/#us-federal) I realize that setting up an automatic integration between your existing source control system and github might be nontrivial (eg if you are using an unpopular source control system for which no easy conversion to git) so this won't work for everyone without funding (and it would be nice if some were made available for that) But if you already use git (or something like SVN or hg which can easily interoperate with git) or don't currently use any SCM (!) then just publishing to github is a nobrainer. Am I missing anything?
- jamespitbully 10y ago>don't currently use any SCM It's even easier when you do. For instance, we have RhodeCode (https://rhodecode.com https://rhodecode.com) as an "umbrella SCM" to control permissions for Git, Hg and Subversion repositories. We then mirror public ones to GitHub/Bitbucket.
- thewopr 10y agoI generally agree. I've seen a few challenges to this perspective. 1) Some agencies do not think using 3rd party services like github is allowed. 2) Different groups make the initial code release pretty time consuming (as, in part, it should be) as, through time, the history may have accumulated secrets/keys/other sensitive material. So very thorough reviews are sometimes required. 3) Some agencies allow the use of github (and the like), but make the process of getting code up there extremely challenging. For example, some groups require all changes to code to go through the same internal review process as traditional communication, like a scientific publication or press release (internal review, multiple levels of management, etc). Of course, the last one is the worst. A lot of groups are getting their act together when it comes to starting open-source, but it is met with a lot of skepticism.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoWant my email address? I'll just send FOIAs all day long through Muckrock if I know what I should be asking for (and pushing the results up to Github and the Internet Archive).
- Kalium 10y agoI would be willing to help code FOIAAAS.
- vanderZwan 10y agoWouldn't this be something that Archive.org might be interested in organising?
- toomuchtodo 10y agoFOIAs made through Muckrock.com already go into the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/MuckRock https://archive.org/details/MuckRock
- tvanantwerp 10y agoI would also happily FOIA software projects if I knew what to be asking for.
- fapjacks 10y agoI already FOIA the shit out of government. I am 100% willing to help FOIA the right people for the right projects.
- gohrt 10y agoAny employee can take home a copy and publish it, no?