4 ms·

One counter argument: national taxes shouldn't be used to produce code that could benefit other countries, unless that is recognised as a kind of international

One counter argument: national taxes shouldn't be used to produce code that could benefit other countries, unless that is recognised as a kind of international aid. (Not my opinion, but one I can imagine from certain political quarters)

dec0dedab0de 9y ago
Has anyone ever made the argument that NASA images are international aid, because they help astronomers in other countries?
- cmurf 9y ago
  Well what matters is whether it is, or can even be, a convincing argument. Just saying things doesn't make them true.
  - tadufre 9y ago
    it makes them true for some people
- jbreckmckye 9y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if some groups have agitated against NASA making 'too much' public.
- _joel 9y ago
  There are a lot of international cooperators, ESA, JAXA etc. For example, the JWST is a joint project between NASA, ESA and CSA. So it's would be remiss of them not to publish publicly (and perhaps break agreements)
Proven 9y ago
The US government recognizes weapons for ISIS are international aid. Stop playing these silly games. If you don't pay tax, the money is guaranteed to remain unabused and it will be well spent.
vog 9y ago
The canonical counter-counter argument is that of course this needs to be established in other countries as well. For example, this is pretty popular political demand here in Germany, as well as in the European Union. (Closely related, almost a special case: that scientific results, especially from public universities, should be open access. And all sources, code as well as collected data, should be openly available.) It is essentially the same issue as with trading agreements, just a different solution: Instead of waiting for bilateral agreements, here single countries can make a start without having a huge disadvantage.
ptero 9y ago
Care to elaborate on reasoning? National taxes IMO should be used to (produce code that) benefit citizens of that nation. Who else benefits as a consequence is irrelevant. Doing this efficiently, especially in software with its low replication costs, often means opening your systems for the world to use (fix, improve, buy), but even if not, considering the benefit of others as a detriment to you is almost never optimal -- SW engineering is not a zero sum game.
- jbreckmckye 9y ago
  > SW engineering is not a zero sum game No, but some stakeholders will see it as such.
- burkemw3 9y ago
  I have heard from people that military strength (including force projection) and intelligence gathering benefits a nation. Releasing the code (and thus methods) related to that strength would decrease some of those benefits. I am not trying to comment on the validity of using military and intelligence gathering as tools in national benefit. I do, however, consider the US federal expenditures on military and intelligence gathering as a partial proxy for others' thoughts.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    Obviously there's tension between releasing code and protecting security interests. Maybe it'd be better to say that public money should produce public code by default and we'd put the onus on agencies and elected officials to exempt projects from the requirement. Should the VA publish their record keeping software? Seems sensible. Should we publish the microcontroller code for ICBM guidance systems? I think the status quo of classifying that information is working out well enough.
nunobrito 9y ago
Talking for what happens in EU right now, not everything gets released as open source. Some public funded software has restrictions in regards to which geographies it can be provided. What matters is that most orgs should make an effort to release as much code as they possibly can. For example, the tools to access a public API should have an official repository with tools so they are the most complete and up to date. A positive side-effect of these public projects is finding talent. I've seen it happen that contributors to an open source project will end up working on a EU space agency because they already met other developers and tech being used there.

dec0dedab0de 9y ago

Has anyone ever made the argument that NASA images are international aid, because they help astronomers in other countries?

cmurf 9y ago
Well what matters is whether it is, or can even be, a convincing argument. Just saying things doesn't make them true.
- tadufre 9y ago
  it makes them true for some people
jbreckmckye 9y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if some groups have agitated against NASA making 'too much' public.
_joel 9y ago
There are a lot of international cooperators, ESA, JAXA etc. For example, the JWST is a joint project between NASA, ESA and CSA. So it's would be remiss of them not to publish publicly (and perhaps break agreements)

Proven 9y ago

The US government recognizes weapons for ISIS are international aid. Stop playing these silly games. If you don't pay tax, the money is guaranteed to remain unabused and it will be well spent.

vog 9y ago

The canonical counter-counter argument is that of course this needs to be established in other countries as well. For example, this is pretty popular political demand here in Germany, as well as in the European Union. (Closely related, almost a special case: that scientific results, especially from public universities, should be open access. And all sources, code as well as collected data, should be openly available.) It is essentially the same issue as with trading agreements, just a different solution: Instead of waiting for bilateral agreements, here single countries can make a start without having a huge disadvantage.

ptero 9y ago

Care to elaborate on reasoning? National taxes IMO should be used to (produce code that) benefit citizens of that nation. Who else benefits as a consequence is irrelevant. Doing this efficiently, especially in software with its low replication costs, often means opening your systems for the world to use (fix, improve, buy), but even if not, considering the benefit of others as a detriment to you is almost never optimal -- SW engineering is not a zero sum game.

jbreckmckye 9y ago
> SW engineering is not a zero sum game No, but some stakeholders will see it as such.
burkemw3 9y ago
I have heard from people that military strength (including force projection) and intelligence gathering benefits a nation. Releasing the code (and thus methods) related to that strength would decrease some of those benefits. I am not trying to comment on the validity of using military and intelligence gathering as tools in national benefit. I do, however, consider the US federal expenditures on military and intelligence gathering as a partial proxy for others' thoughts.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Obviously there's tension between releasing code and protecting security interests. Maybe it'd be better to say that public money should produce public code by default and we'd put the onus on agencies and elected officials to exempt projects from the requirement. Should the VA publish their record keeping software? Seems sensible. Should we publish the microcontroller code for ICBM guidance systems? I think the status quo of classifying that information is working out well enough.

nunobrito 9y ago

Talking for what happens in EU right now, not everything gets released as open source. Some public funded software has restrictions in regards to which geographies it can be provided. What matters is that most orgs should make an effort to release as much code as they possibly can. For example, the tools to access a public API should have an official repository with tools so they are the most complete and up to date. A positive side-effect of these public projects is finding talent. I've seen it happen that contributors to an open source project will end up working on a EU space agency because they already met other developers and tech being used there.