3 ms·
So the reasons are: cost, contributions, and audits. I'm playing devil's advocate here and think this could be an interesting thought exercise. There is no ev
by fallat 6y ago
So the reasons are: cost, contributions, and audits.
I'm playing devil's advocate here and think this could be an interesting thought exercise.
There is no evidence or proof any of the above are advantageous to governments.
1. Cost - Does it cost more for an existing solution, that maybe other governments and companies have paid toward, than adding features to a solution without all the bells and whistles?
2. Do you want other governments to receive the improvements?
3. Do you want other governments to be able to audit your ("you" being the government) software? It is more effective to hire a specialized audit team or have random code readings by random people?
- spurdoman77 6y agoMy toughts: 2. Yes, in areas where other governments profit isnt your loss. I think there are lots of these. For example, if you have software which makes people more healthy, you wont lose if people in other countries get healthier as well. 3. Yes, similarly in many areas others auditing the software is harmless.
- sjy 6y agoI have found that not everyone in the public sector would agree with (2). By giving away the software you lose the ability to sell it and recover some of the money you spent on it. Similarly, funding the development of proprietary software involves less capital expenditure because the developer can charge less than they spend and still profit by selling to others. I don’t believe that either of these arguments are sound, but it’s hard to respond to them when the experts on how software development should be done are the contractors who benefit from these arrangements.
- xapata 6y agoOpen source software is a public good. The government is responsible for creating and maintaining public goods. Where's the dissonance?