7 ms·

I really wish the EU would put up funds for open source software, like signal, it seems to be something they could get behind for the greater good. My previous

I really wish the EU would put up funds for open source software, like signal, it seems to be something they could get behind for the greater good. My previous job involved creating a graphical programming language for the generation of GPU shaders, which the EU partly funded. I knew it was going nowhere, and it made me slightly sad tax payer money was being used on something I knew, despite my best efforts, would not work. Oh well...

sneeuwpopsneeuw 6y ago
that sounds interesting do you have any links? or insights to why it did not work out?
agilob 6y ago
>I really wish the EU would put up funds for open source software, like signal, it seems to be something they could get behind for the greater good. They do https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-projects-get-eu-funding-bug-bounty-payments/ https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-p...
- arendtio 6y ago
  I just wonder about the process and the results. I mean, it doesn't look to me, as if there is a management behind this, that actually has a goal. It looks more like they are giving funds to projects who apply for them. IMO, they should state 3 clear goals and sponsor specific projects which reach those goals. To give some example how those could look like: - create a decentralized, federated instant messaging platform, that is build on public standards - create an e-learning platform that is usable with already established devices - establish a market for the created software with partners Naturally, all result would have to be open-source products and the goals would need some details/numbers to measure them. They could even invest into already established projects, but please, with easy to understand goals.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    I disagree. I believe the governments should fund existing open source software that are considered to be "critical" infrastructure (as in lots and lots of people rely on it) instead of chasing some random goals and adding bureaucracy on top that would slow down lead developers. Just give them money and trust them that they'll do whatever it is they've done so far that many people recognised and started relying on their solution to the problem. Without looking them up, there's exactly three pieces of software in the list above your comment that I don't recognize: FLUX TL, WSO2, midPoint. I'm happy to see all the other names on it, and I'm pretty sure I'll feel the same way about these three after I look them up.
    - arendtio 6y ago
      I am not so sure that we disagree. I would consider instant messaging services 'critical infrastructure'. The difference seems to be, that you want to support projects that are large already, while I would certainly put more focus on smaller projects as those are the ones which can initiate change. I find it heartbreaking, that we still depend on WhatsApp and Zoom. Neither service owner is particular trustworthy. Communication is definitely critical infrastructure and yet, the open-source alternatives are very limited (in quality, not in quantity). So investing in this kind of functionality is key.
      - tortasaur 6y ago
        In terms of software, Signal and Jitsi are great alternatives to WhatsApp and Zoom. People don't use them because of network effects, not because the incumbents are inherently superior.
        eecc 6y ago
        Yeah,and they crumble to bits like Signal is doing right now, breaking the wave of mass adoption. Cynical, profit driven and well funded operations have enough capital to weather these downpours, indeed they’re actually planning for them. I hope Signal sorts their capacity quickly, I’m terrified that my circles switch back to WhatsApp. And then I’m fucked, I either surrender myself to Facebook or cut off from society
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  That's a bug bounty programme, which I agree is useful but not quite what I was talking about.
  - g_p 6y ago
    While better than nothing, I'd argue a bug bounty is perhaps the opposite of what's truly needed - incentivising the finding of vulnerabilities is good, but it needs people to fix those. Alas, this is what happens when tech policy is written by people without tech experience, I suspect.
zajio1am 6y ago
I wisth they do not put up funds to signal. It is closed ecosystem. Even traditional phone calls are more open (having federated independent operators and interoperable implementations).
- medstrom 6y ago
  This is the old Signal-Matrix debate. https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom In short, federation makes a lot of things more difficult, and Signal opted not to do that to get a polished product quickly. Still, it's not either-or. As I remember it, Moxie welcomes the Matrix developers to try their approach and would be glad if they can get it right, he was just worried that it'd basically never lift off. I think it's not bad to donate to either project, it's a good thing that we have both.
MrPatan 6y ago
I know you mean well, and I understand the feeling, but how can you say in the same breath that the EU funds useless software and that you wish they funded more software? Why would the newly-funded software be the useful kind instead of the useless kind?
- amelius 6y ago
  Because if they got more serious about it, they'd install committees to evaluate proposals, et cetera., like they do for scientific research proposals.
  - burrows 6y ago
    Right, what this problem needs is more committees!
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    The funding should be in return for a chunk of profits (ie. The EU becomes a shareholder). They should employ teams of investors to decide where EU money is best invested. They should use their governmentness to investigate companies after a few years and where they find someone got rich, yet the company failed, put some people in prison. Being the EU they can say "using legal loopholes to suck the company dry is in itself illegal".
jessewmc 6y ago
I mean, isn't that sort of the fundamental problem with government funding? They're not very good at picking winners, and when they make winners by picking, sometimes it still turns out to be a mistake (e.g. diesel in Europe). Still, it does seem something infrastructure/utility-ish like Signal would be a good candidate for at least some support.
jeofken 6y ago
What you’re wishing for is to force your fellow man to donate to a cause you deem worthy. EU funds don’t come from nowhere - they are taken from citizens. You go donate an hours wage a week instead; that’s virtuous.
- McDyver 6y ago
  That's how taxes work, unfortunately you can't pick and choose to which causes they go. That's why, in a democracy, you vote to elect your representative who will, hopefully, make sure your taxes contribute to causes you deem worthy. Be it open source, health services, education, ...
  - jeofken 6y ago
    You are right - taxation is coercion and not virtuous. You are also right about representative democracy - the incentive is to have the state fleeze your neighbour as much as possible. For those working in the bureaucracy the incentive is to convince the boss you need a larger budget next year. Certainly far from “love thy neighbour”. Donate yourself, you can be a hundred times more efficient than EU bureaucracy, no exaggeration
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - orf 6y ago
      Eh, but in reality no not really. The PyPy project is one example of a fantastic outcome for OSS (among others): they where heavily reliant on EU funding to get to the point they are now. VLC, glibc, Keepass, Kafka, tomcat and others have had EU funds for their security bounty programs. My 10 EUR contribution to this via my taxes (simplistic and incorrect) is fine. Angry anti-tax anti-big-gov rhetoric involving wishful thinking whilst ignoring the reality we actually live in does little to advance your cause, and for lack of a better word makes you sound rather silly.
      - jeofken 6y ago
setbackreset 6y ago
There seem to have been put up huge budgets for bootstrapling startups in tech sectors from the aEu budget recently though? Something like EU Horizon
IceWreck 6y ago
Signal isnt federated or self-hostable. As long as its not, I dont see it as completely open source software because we still have to depend on their servers to use Signal. I feel public money should only be donated to them once people are able to setup their own signal instances, like Matrix. France for example uses Matrix for their internal communications. They don't use the public homeserver, rather, they use their own.

sneeuwpopsneeuw 6y ago

that sounds interesting do you have any links? or insights to why it did not work out?

agilob 6y ago

>I really wish the EU would put up funds for open source software, like signal, it seems to be something they could get behind for the greater good. They do https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-projects-get-eu-funding-bug-bounty-payments/ https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-p...

arendtio 6y ago
I just wonder about the process and the results. I mean, it doesn't look to me, as if there is a management behind this, that actually has a goal. It looks more like they are giving funds to projects who apply for them. IMO, they should state 3 clear goals and sponsor specific projects which reach those goals. To give some example how those could look like: - create a decentralized, federated instant messaging platform, that is build on public standards - create an e-learning platform that is usable with already established devices - establish a market for the created software with partners Naturally, all result would have to be open-source products and the goals would need some details/numbers to measure them. They could even invest into already established projects, but please, with easy to understand goals.
- input_sh 6y ago
  I disagree. I believe the governments should fund existing open source software that are considered to be "critical" infrastructure (as in lots and lots of people rely on it) instead of chasing some random goals and adding bureaucracy on top that would slow down lead developers. Just give them money and trust them that they'll do whatever it is they've done so far that many people recognised and started relying on their solution to the problem. Without looking them up, there's exactly three pieces of software in the list above your comment that I don't recognize: FLUX TL, WSO2, midPoint. I'm happy to see all the other names on it, and I'm pretty sure I'll feel the same way about these three after I look them up.
  - arendtio 6y ago
    I am not so sure that we disagree. I would consider instant messaging services 'critical infrastructure'. The difference seems to be, that you want to support projects that are large already, while I would certainly put more focus on smaller projects as those are the ones which can initiate change. I find it heartbreaking, that we still depend on WhatsApp and Zoom. Neither service owner is particular trustworthy. Communication is definitely critical infrastructure and yet, the open-source alternatives are very limited (in quality, not in quantity). So investing in this kind of functionality is key.
    - tortasaur 6y ago
      In terms of software, Signal and Jitsi are great alternatives to WhatsApp and Zoom. People don't use them because of network effects, not because the incumbents are inherently superior.
      - eecc 6y ago
        Yeah,and they crumble to bits like Signal is doing right now, breaking the wave of mass adoption. Cynical, profit driven and well funded operations have enough capital to weather these downpours, indeed they’re actually planning for them. I hope Signal sorts their capacity quickly, I’m terrified that my circles switch back to WhatsApp. And then I’m fucked, I either surrender myself to Facebook or cut off from society
CodeGlitch 6y ago
That's a bug bounty programme, which I agree is useful but not quite what I was talking about.
- g_p 6y ago
  While better than nothing, I'd argue a bug bounty is perhaps the opposite of what's truly needed - incentivising the finding of vulnerabilities is good, but it needs people to fix those. Alas, this is what happens when tech policy is written by people without tech experience, I suspect.

zajio1am 6y ago

I wisth they do not put up funds to signal. It is closed ecosystem. Even traditional phone calls are more open (having federated independent operators and interoperable implementations).

medstrom 6y ago
This is the old Signal-Matrix debate. https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom In short, federation makes a lot of things more difficult, and Signal opted not to do that to get a polished product quickly. Still, it's not either-or. As I remember it, Moxie welcomes the Matrix developers to try their approach and would be glad if they can get it right, he was just worried that it'd basically never lift off. I think it's not bad to donate to either project, it's a good thing that we have both.

MrPatan 6y ago

I know you mean well, and I understand the feeling, but how can you say in the same breath that the EU funds useless software and that you wish they funded more software? Why would the newly-funded software be the useful kind instead of the useless kind?

amelius 6y ago
Because if they got more serious about it, they'd install committees to evaluate proposals, et cetera., like they do for scientific research proposals.
- burrows 6y ago
  Right, what this problem needs is more committees!
- londons_explore 6y ago
  The funding should be in return for a chunk of profits (ie. The EU becomes a shareholder). They should employ teams of investors to decide where EU money is best invested. They should use their governmentness to investigate companies after a few years and where they find someone got rich, yet the company failed, put some people in prison. Being the EU they can say "using legal loopholes to suck the company dry is in itself illegal".

jessewmc 6y ago

I mean, isn't that sort of the fundamental problem with government funding? They're not very good at picking winners, and when they make winners by picking, sometimes it still turns out to be a mistake (e.g. diesel in Europe). Still, it does seem something infrastructure/utility-ish like Signal would be a good candidate for at least some support.

jeofken 6y ago

What you’re wishing for is to force your fellow man to donate to a cause you deem worthy. EU funds don’t come from nowhere - they are taken from citizens. You go donate an hours wage a week instead; that’s virtuous.

McDyver 6y ago
That's how taxes work, unfortunately you can't pick and choose to which causes they go. That's why, in a democracy, you vote to elect your representative who will, hopefully, make sure your taxes contribute to causes you deem worthy. Be it open source, health services, education, ...
- jeofken 6y ago
  You are right - taxation is coercion and not virtuous. You are also right about representative democracy - the incentive is to have the state fleeze your neighbour as much as possible. For those working in the bureaucracy the incentive is to convince the boss you need a larger budget next year. Certainly far from “love thy neighbour”. Donate yourself, you can be a hundred times more efficient than EU bureaucracy, no exaggeration
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - orf 6y ago
    Eh, but in reality no not really. The PyPy project is one example of a fantastic outcome for OSS (among others): they where heavily reliant on EU funding to get to the point they are now. VLC, glibc, Keepass, Kafka, tomcat and others have had EU funds for their security bounty programs. My 10 EUR contribution to this via my taxes (simplistic and incorrect) is fine. Angry anti-tax anti-big-gov rhetoric involving wishful thinking whilst ignoring the reality we actually live in does little to advance your cause, and for lack of a better word makes you sound rather silly.
    - jeofken 6y ago

setbackreset 6y ago

There seem to have been put up huge budgets for bootstrapling startups in tech sectors from the aEu budget recently though? Something like EU Horizon

IceWreck 6y ago

Signal isnt federated or self-hostable. As long as its not, I dont see it as completely open source software because we still have to depend on their servers to use Signal. I feel public money should only be donated to them once people are able to setup their own signal instances, like Matrix. France for example uses Matrix for their internal communications. They don't use the public homeserver, rather, they use their own.