2 ms·
I'd love to see this be adopted in the US, but I'm not holding my breath. There's an example of this in my field that upsets me quite a bit. A set of tools wer
by caxistic 9y ago
I'd love to see this be adopted in the US, but I'm not holding my breath.
There's an example of this in my field that upsets me quite a bit. A set of tools were developed using public funds through federal research grants and other similar mechanisms, with the express purpose of making free alternatives to private tools available. After the project was successfully completed, the leaders of the project decided to start charging hundreds of dollars for "maintenance" of the toolset, which would only run on Apple devices no less. (For some tools, the cost is substantially less than private alternatives; for others it's more expensive or about the same.)
My concern about this isn't so much that they started charging money to maintain the project per se, after federal grants ran dry. My concern is that the product development costs were already paid for using taxpayer dollars, and that if it were open-sourced, it would be almost as usable, if not more usable (if it were ported to other non-Apple platforms), and free.
The other area of this that I find upsetting are these "small business grants" that basically use taxpayer funds for VC software development, with no public return. Government pays for software development, and then the developer gets to charge for it later.
- mmaurizi 9y agoThe public return comes in the form of the company that receives the grant paying federal income taxes on their profits. Commercial profitability is usually a desired goal for these business grants, because the government wants their money back (via taxes).