4 ms·

Why? NASA partners with SpaceX and other space companies on specific projects. For example, NASA needed a special crew module and so they commissioned SpaceX to

Why? NASA partners with SpaceX and other space companies on specific projects. For example, NASA needed a special crew module and so they commissioned SpaceX to design and build the crew dragon. I don't see why having NASA as a customer means SpaceX loses the right to private property. If a government agency decided to become a paying customer of your SaaS project, should you be forced to open source all your code because you are now receiving public money? I suspect the answer is the same as with the SpaceX footage - the public may benefit if it was released, but it seems an unreasonable burden.

dylan604 7y ago
Simple, because it's my money that paid for it. That's the reason NASA footage is public domain. It's publicly funded with tax dollars.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  SpaceX is not 100% NASA funded. NASA contracts SpaceX for a specific product and nasa receives that product. In other words, you do get what you pay for. Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Your tax dollars buy plenty of iPhones and Macs. Should apple release all their software and hardware to you?
  - dylan604 7y ago
    I think you are reading too much into my original statement. I did NOT say I think 100% of all SpaceX footage should be made public domain. I specifically stated that if it is funded by govt funding, then it should.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      But it’s completely arbitrary. Why the footage and not the source code for all of their software as well? The footage isn’t what’s being paid for by the government. The only thing that’s being stipulated is that the satellite makes it into its required orbit. Everything else is ancillary to that. This includes footage, software modifications required, internal communications during launch, the parts purchased for the launch vehicle, and on and on. You’re just arbitrarily requiring one of those things should now be public without a justification.
      - dylan604 7y ago
        Honestly, I completely skipped your second paragraph. I definitely see a difference in your example. To me, the SpaceX missions done on behalf of the public via NASA/ESA/etc is the result/output of the govt spending. That should always be made public. The use of the software is just a tool used to produce said output, so no, I would not automatically suggest the the code should be made available. If the govt funding paid for that software, then yes, it should be made available. There's a difference between funding the development of software vs buying a license to use software.
  - hesk 7y ago
    > Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Yes. Public money, public code. https://publiccode.eu/ https://publiccode.eu/
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      There is a huge difference between software created for the government and software the government uses. I agree 100% that when the government creates a contract for new software to be written, the government (the public) owns that code and it should be open source. But if the government uses existing products and services, such as macOS, I think it is wrong to say that the public now owns macOS and that apple must open source their code. Similarly, is NASA contracts spaceX to design and test a new rocket, then that new rocket arguably belongs to the public and should be open source. But it is wrong to claim that the public now owns everything SpaceX might produce, such as video content, just because SpaceX took on a government agency as a customer.
- albntomat0 7y ago
  SpaceX deliveries what they are contracted as a private company to provide. To my knowledge, this does not include putting mission footage into the public domain. Adding additional requirements increases the cost passed on to the tax payer.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dylan604 7y ago

Simple, because it's my money that paid for it. That's the reason NASA footage is public domain. It's publicly funded with tax dollars.

dahfizz 7y ago
SpaceX is not 100% NASA funded. NASA contracts SpaceX for a specific product and nasa receives that product. In other words, you do get what you pay for. Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Your tax dollars buy plenty of iPhones and Macs. Should apple release all their software and hardware to you?
- dylan604 7y ago
  I think you are reading too much into my original statement. I did NOT say I think 100% of all SpaceX footage should be made public domain. I specifically stated that if it is funded by govt funding, then it should.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    But it’s completely arbitrary. Why the footage and not the source code for all of their software as well? The footage isn’t what’s being paid for by the government. The only thing that’s being stipulated is that the satellite makes it into its required orbit. Everything else is ancillary to that. This includes footage, software modifications required, internal communications during launch, the parts purchased for the launch vehicle, and on and on. You’re just arbitrarily requiring one of those things should now be public without a justification.
    - dylan604 7y ago
      Honestly, I completely skipped your second paragraph. I definitely see a difference in your example. To me, the SpaceX missions done on behalf of the public via NASA/ESA/etc is the result/output of the govt spending. That should always be made public. The use of the software is just a tool used to produce said output, so no, I would not automatically suggest the the code should be made available. If the govt funding paid for that software, then yes, it should be made available. There's a difference between funding the development of software vs buying a license to use software.
- hesk 7y ago
  > Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced? Yes. Public money, public code. https://publiccode.eu/ https://publiccode.eu/
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    There is a huge difference between software created for the government and software the government uses. I agree 100% that when the government creates a contract for new software to be written, the government (the public) owns that code and it should be open source. But if the government uses existing products and services, such as macOS, I think it is wrong to say that the public now owns macOS and that apple must open source their code. Similarly, is NASA contracts spaceX to design and test a new rocket, then that new rocket arguably belongs to the public and should be open source. But it is wrong to claim that the public now owns everything SpaceX might produce, such as video content, just because SpaceX took on a government agency as a customer.
albntomat0 7y ago
SpaceX deliveries what they are contracted as a private company to provide. To my knowledge, this does not include putting mission footage into the public domain. Adding additional requirements increases the cost passed on to the tax payer.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]