3 ms·

For an app that cost in the tens of millions to produce[1], and for which the company (gov-owned and operated) behind it charges implementors/users (not end-use

• rileymat2 4y ago
  If the money is going back into the public coffers supplanting other tax revenue, a fee for delivery must help prevent spam? I don't know enough about the topic but at first glance it seems there could be worse things. I suppose it would hinge on your view of regressive use fees as well.
• miohtama 4y ago
  “ This code has been disclosed in response to a request under the Dutch Open Government Act ("Wet open Overheid"). This implies that publication is primarily driven by the need for transparence, not re-use. Re-use is permitted under the EUPL-license, with the exception of source files that contain a different license.” It sounds like they might not been very keen to maintain the app. Can there be alternative better implementations or DigID “hardcoded” to one provider?
  • Vinnl 4y ago
    I think that just means "this won't be very helpful in standing up your own DigID". It also says they're looking at providing more ongoing transparency.