3 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoBluntly 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 agoSome 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)?