3 ms·

Why do software developers always shoot themselves in the foot with regard to their economic value? Governments pay all the time for development of technology

Why do software developers always shoot themselves in the foot with regard to their economic value? Governments pay all the time for development of technology that they buy, but that doesn't mean that the IP is released. For example, the government paid Boeing to develop transport aircraft. However, that does not mean that all the drawings/plans/etc for the aircraft are made public. The government is buying a set of functionality with public money. As long as they are getting that functionality, it doesn't matter that the code is proprietary.

ceeplusplus 5y ago
The government paying for software to be developed is quite a bit different from a SaaS offering. If I pay some guy on Upwork to build something for me I expect the source code. Of course the SaaS model is much better for developers to realize their worth, because you are essentially creating capital goods as a developer and being the owner of those goods is much more profitable than selling them.
postalrat 5y ago
What would be the expectation of source code ownership if you hired consultants or a team of developers to produce a piece of software for you? Do they keep it proprietary to themselves or should it belong to you?
automatoney 5y ago
Some of us value other things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source-software_movement#Motivations_of_programmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source-software_movement#...) more than additional compensation. These ideas have roots in the original hacker culture that this site was named for - this stuff is the foundation of a lot of computer culture.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  Increasingly I hear this expressed as "Technology In The Public Interest", and is a movement I strongly affiliate with because it is related to national security (as I have defined it elsewhere) [0] as resilience and sustainability. See writing [1] and institutional support [2][3] separate from notions of software freedom as traditionally carried by Stallman et al/EFF/GNU/FSF. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570 [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/01/the_public-interest_.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/01/the_public-... [2] https://www.macfound.org/programs/technology/ https://www.macfound.org/programs/technology/ [3] https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/big-ideas/public-interest-technology/ https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/big-ideas/pu...
nickff 5y ago
>"However, that does not mean that all the drawings/plans/etc for the aircraft are made public." The (US) government actually tried the approach of purchasing a few initial runs and the plans for some missiles, but the results were bad. Initial development costs were high, reliability was low, and manufacturability was poor.
- OkayPhysicist 5y ago
  Having private companies control the intellectual property of our defense systems is a disaster that leads to aggressive rent seeking by defense contractors. Now, missile guidance software may not want to be open source, but the navy engineers down at China Lake should definitely have unrestricted ability to read, modify, and reproduce anything developed in their behalf.
  - nickff 5y ago
    I have long thought that missile and aircraft avionics should be made into more of a standardized, modular system (possibly open or government distributed source), for better upgradability and maintainability. I am sure this has been considered, and wonder why it hasn't been done.
bombcar 5y ago
IIRC they actually can demand copies of the drawings/plans for their own records and use so that they can dig them up if the B-52 needs to be extended another decade. Governments are better at keeping ancient records around than most companies.

ceeplusplus 5y ago

The government paying for software to be developed is quite a bit different from a SaaS offering. If I pay some guy on Upwork to build something for me I expect the source code. Of course the SaaS model is much better for developers to realize their worth, because you are essentially creating capital goods as a developer and being the owner of those goods is much more profitable than selling them.

postalrat 5y ago

What would be the expectation of source code ownership if you hired consultants or a team of developers to produce a piece of software for you? Do they keep it proprietary to themselves or should it belong to you?

automatoney 5y ago

Some of us value other things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source-software_movement#Motivations_of_programmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source-software_movement#...) more than additional compensation. These ideas have roots in the original hacker culture that this site was named for - this stuff is the foundation of a lot of computer culture.

nonrandomstring 5y ago
Increasingly I hear this expressed as "Technology In The Public Interest", and is a movement I strongly affiliate with because it is related to national security (as I have defined it elsewhere) [0] as resilience and sustainability. See writing [1] and institutional support [2][3] separate from notions of software freedom as traditionally carried by Stallman et al/EFF/GNU/FSF. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31108570 [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/01/the_public-interest_.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/01/the_public-... [2] https://www.macfound.org/programs/technology/ https://www.macfound.org/programs/technology/ [3] https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/big-ideas/public-interest-technology/ https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/big-ideas/pu...

nickff 5y ago

>"However, that does not mean that all the drawings/plans/etc for the aircraft are made public." The (US) government actually tried the approach of purchasing a few initial runs and the plans for some missiles, but the results were bad. Initial development costs were high, reliability was low, and manufacturability was poor.

OkayPhysicist 5y ago
Having private companies control the intellectual property of our defense systems is a disaster that leads to aggressive rent seeking by defense contractors. Now, missile guidance software may not want to be open source, but the navy engineers down at China Lake should definitely have unrestricted ability to read, modify, and reproduce anything developed in their behalf.
- nickff 5y ago
  I have long thought that missile and aircraft avionics should be made into more of a standardized, modular system (possibly open or government distributed source), for better upgradability and maintainability. I am sure this has been considered, and wonder why it hasn't been done.

bombcar 5y ago

IIRC they actually can demand copies of the drawings/plans for their own records and use so that they can dig them up if the B-52 needs to be extended another decade. Governments are better at keeping ancient records around than most companies.