3 ms·

If open source software is a public good, then it should be funded like other public goods. Unfortunately, there are some laws in the US that prevent governmen

by xapata 4y ago

If open source software is a public good, then it should be funded like other public goods. Unfortunately, there are some laws in the US that prevent government organizations from creating software that competes with software created by private companies, so the legal situation is awkward.

specialist 4y ago
Of course. Not surprised, just dissappointed. I'd like to learn about this; maybe you can point me in the right direction. (I worked on election integrity during the aughts, advocated citizen-owned software. I now feel I missed an(other) explanation for the bias towards the commercial stuff.)
- xapata 4y ago
  I might be out of date. When searching for links to the policy, I found some notes about changes to the policy in 2015: https://congressionaldata.org/open-source-software-now-permitted-in-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-2/ https://congressionaldata.org/open-source-software-now-permi... The instance I'm mildly familiar with is Apache Accumulo. It was created in 2008 by a team at the NSA, and open-sourced in 2011. They discovered that the NSA was required to purchase the tool from a commercial company, so the team left the NSA and started Sqrrl Data, Inc., to sell the NSA's product back to itself. That was my understanding, at least. I am not a lawyer.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Result! You're the best. Thank you. > to sell the NSA's product back to itself Typical. My county developed its own election administration software, gave it all to Global Election Systems (the notorious entity later bought by Diebold), then turned around and paid for yearly license and support. (There were rumors that our Sec of State got kickbacks.) Then, insult to injury, GES/Diebold claimed trade secrets to prevent independent inspection. I can kind of understand. Neither the NSA or my county want to be software publishers. Core competency and all. But some of these arrangements are pretty bad.

by xapata 4y ago

specialist 4y ago

Of course. Not surprised, just dissappointed. I'd like to learn about this; maybe you can point me in the right direction. (I worked on election integrity during the aughts, advocated citizen-owned software. I now feel I missed an(other) explanation for the bias towards the commercial stuff.)

xapata 4y ago
I might be out of date. When searching for links to the policy, I found some notes about changes to the policy in 2015: https://congressionaldata.org/open-source-software-now-permitted-in-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-2/ https://congressionaldata.org/open-source-software-now-permi... The instance I'm mildly familiar with is Apache Accumulo. It was created in 2008 by a team at the NSA, and open-sourced in 2011. They discovered that the NSA was required to purchase the tool from a commercial company, so the team left the NSA and started Sqrrl Data, Inc., to sell the NSA's product back to itself. That was my understanding, at least. I am not a lawyer.
- specialist 4y ago
  Result! You're the best. Thank you. > to sell the NSA's product back to itself Typical. My county developed its own election administration software, gave it all to Global Election Systems (the notorious entity later bought by Diebold), then turned around and paid for yearly license and support. (There were rumors that our Sec of State got kickbacks.) Then, insult to injury, GES/Diebold claimed trade secrets to prevent independent inspection. I can kind of understand. Neither the NSA or my county want to be software publishers. Core competency and all. But some of these arrangements are pretty bad.