3 ms·

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 yo

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.

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.