3 ms·
I work as a government contractor. We've fixed bugs in OSS that we've used, but been unable to contribute the fixes back. This is a huge hassle because we are n
by systematical 6y ago
I work as a government contractor. We've fixed bugs in OSS that we've used, but been unable to contribute the fixes back. This is a huge hassle because we are now on a fork and have to deal with merges from upstream, it will get worse over time.
More recently I developed a missing (in my view) extension to a piece of software. Too make this OSS-able would take a few extra hours and I wouldn't mind doing that step on my own time. But that's a nope.
So we can use OSS, we can modify OSS, but we can't contribute PRs or new software. At least for the three letter agency I work with. Lots of the type of applications being developed in the public sector aren't really any different then private sector. They take data in, they do something with it, and they output data. If the software doesn't require a security clearance, you should be able open source it IMO or at least contribute PRs.
- executesorder66 6y agoWhy are you unable to merge your changes upstream?
- systematical 6y agoI was given some nebulous answer and well I have my own OSS projects on the side that I care more about so I don't care to push that. WTS. I would be happy to do the last mile on my own, but I am not going to fight for it. It should instead be encouraged buts its not. So here we are. I have good contributions to make but don't. Some good OSS projects losing out and by a thin proxy, many other three letter agencies. The most I do is contribute to OSS documentation on gov time and just don't bring it up. Also fix issues by replying to issues since thats not code.
- executesorder66 6y agoWell I'd say it would be totally worth it to push back on that and insist that you be allowed to merge your stuff upstream. Even if it's for no other reason than ease of maintenance, so you don't have to keep merging upstream to your fork.