5 ms·

"Public money, public code for every other government to grab without having to pay for it"

by vadfa 5y ago

atoav 5y ago
That's the point of it. If we would do traffic like we do IT today every city would have their own graphic designer coming up with Stop and Yield signs.
- oever 5y ago
  No, every city would license the $BigCorp logos for Stop and Yield and let $BigCorp police the streets. The logos would be updated frequently and drivers would need to have mandatory new training. Some cities would have a cheaper license in exchange for requiring citizens to share their movement data with $BigCorp. To get from A to B, drivers would have to pass through $BigMac and wait 1 minute with the option to buy a 'meal' and continue on quicker.
  - kwere 5y ago
    land of the freest!
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  > That's the point of it. I would argue that this is a side effect. The point is: code paid for with taxpayers money is not some proprietary bigco ip.
  - atoav 5y ago
    Yeah, but these are intended side effects: - less duplication of work (=spending of tax money) between structurally very similar communes - less lock-in that keeps you bound to that one corp forever (=more incentives for them to deliver good work for the money) - potential collaboration and improvements from outside actors (private persons, other communes, organizations, companies, ...) The idea is basically: if we need to spend money for software anyway, why not develope it in a way that produces lasting value for society as a whole?
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      Bluntly speaking, as a taxpayer of country A I don’t care if country B benefits. It’s okay if they do but as a taxpayer of country A I wouldn’t like my money to be spent on solving country’s B issues. I agree with your general premise, though.
      - atoav 5y ago
        Some truth to that on a national level, but what about the communal level? Wouldn't your whole nation be a better place if its counties didn't have to spend money for solving the same problems over and over again (and put the money into other infrastructure instead)?
eliaspro 5y ago
Your write this like it'd be a bad thing? It's not only that others can grab your software for free, it's also the other way round - resulting in way fewer effort, cost, increased stability/quality etc for everyone.
Apofis 5y ago
So?
freemint 5y ago
You won't believe it but for an export nation like Germany (which doesn't export much IT services) it is good if other governments have to spend less.

"Public money, public code for every other government to grab without having to pay for it"

by vadfa 5y ago

"Public money, public code for every other government to grab without having to pay for it"

That's the point of it. If we would do traffic like we do IT today every city would have their own graphic designer coming up with Stop and Yield signs.

oever 5y ago
No, every city would license the $BigCorp logos for Stop and Yield and let $BigCorp police the streets. The logos would be updated frequently and drivers would need to have mandatory new training. Some cities would have a cheaper license in exchange for requiring citizens to share their movement data with $BigCorp. To get from A to B, drivers would have to pass through $BigMac and wait 1 minute with the option to buy a 'meal' and continue on quicker.
- kwere 5y ago
  land of the freest!
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
> That's the point of it. I would argue that this is a side effect. The point is: code paid for with taxpayers money is not some proprietary bigco ip.
- atoav 5y ago
  Yeah, but these are intended side effects: - less duplication of work (=spending of tax money) between structurally very similar communes - less lock-in that keeps you bound to that one corp forever (=more incentives for them to deliver good work for the money) - potential collaboration and improvements from outside actors (private persons, other communes, organizations, companies, ...) The idea is basically: if we need to spend money for software anyway, why not develope it in a way that produces lasting value for society as a whole?
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    Bluntly speaking, as a taxpayer of country A I don’t care if country B benefits. It’s okay if they do but as a taxpayer of country A I wouldn’t like my money to be spent on solving country’s B issues. I agree with your general premise, though.
    - atoav 5y ago
      Some truth to that on a national level, but what about the communal level? Wouldn't your whole nation be a better place if its counties didn't have to spend money for solving the same problems over and over again (and put the money into other infrastructure instead)?

eliaspro 5y ago

Your write this like it'd be a bad thing? It's not only that others can grab your software for free, it's also the other way round - resulting in way fewer effort, cost, increased stability/quality etc for everyone.

Apofis 5y ago

So?

freemint 5y ago

You won't believe it but for an export nation like Germany (which doesn't export much IT services) it is good if other governments have to spend less.