3 ms·

A lot of this stuff just feels like Europe is going to end up locking itself out of any level of commercial innovation in the gov-tech space. Open data etc I g

A lot of this stuff just feels like Europe is going to end up locking itself out of any level of commercial innovation in the gov-tech space. Open data etc I get. But a lot of the drives around only using actual open-src software just sounds insane if they don't want to be building everything from source and self-hosting forever.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago
> But a lot of the drives around only using actual open-src software just sounds insane Why does it sound insane? Software written for the gov, and used by the gov, is inevitably paid with the tax money. It belongs to the taxpayer. IMO we should require all software paid for with our taxes to be developed as open source.
- llamaLord 4y ago
  What if the government can get better capability out of a SaaS product paid for by private capital than they can out of something they build themselves? Are we saying government's should just be locked into single-build custom software for all eternity? A single piece of software can be used by multiple different governments... In which case no one government has "paid for it". In that scenario, how is a government any different to any other B2B customer?
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    > What if the government can get better capability out of a SaaS product paid for by private capital than they can out of something they build themselves? That’s fine as long as the parts developed and paid for with taxes are open sourced. > Are we saying government's should just be locked into single-build custom software for all eternity? Not sure I follow. There’s no reason why software cannot be developed and supported by multiple for-profit entities. As long as the output is open source. > A single piece of software can be used by multiple different governments... In which case no one government has "paid for it". As a taxpayer, that’s not my problem. It is the problem of company behind the software. > In that scenario, how is a government any different to any other B2B customer? It’s different because the money the government operates on comes from taxes. The government should put the money back in the local economy and finance the development of the open source software. I understand that this is a very loaded statement.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    >A single piece of software can be used by multiple different governments... In which case no one government has "paid for it". That is the point of free software. NASA writes a software so why should any other person/government need to redo the same effort twice? They got their moneys worth for their work so if someone enjoys that later for free, why is that a problem? Suppose a small municipality needs a small backscratch software, they hire a local Dev, that Dev gets the job done and the municipality releases it as free software. Now why shouldn't any other govt anywhere in the world not leverage that? Why can't you pay Microsoft to develop a new feature in Linux kernel for example? Why do you assume a for profit entity has to keep their work proprietary? Do you know how freelancing or project based jobs work? A tender is made and L1 is chosen. The output should be open sourced so what's the problem?
- jlpcsl 4y ago
  > IMO we should require all software paid for with our taxes to be developed as open source. Could not agree more with this. It is also the only kind of software that enables real privacy and transparency and real freedom/sovereignty and possibility for right to repair. A lot of great info about this here on Public Money, Public Code page: https://publiccode.eu/ https://publiccode.eu/
izacus 4y ago
What were the amazing achievements of private corporations that European governments benefitted from directly? High quality, innovative products?
riedel 4y ago
IMHO this is taking it too far: free software first, means that it is not exclusive. Also it does not mean that you need to do it yourself. IMHO government contracts can help selling FOSS and thus sustaining FOSS. IMHO there is clearly a reason to drive quasi standards in areas that move quickly (aka implementations) and not rely only on clear standards. In cases where there is no fitting standard FOSS makes sense. One other thing is that should be weighted in procurement is that if one government body pays for development others should be able to profit. Vendors actually exploit the fragmentation of administration in Europe, reselling customized solutions and exploiting dependencies commercially. I do not that this has lead to much innovation in gov tech over the last year's...

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

> But a lot of the drives around only using actual open-src software just sounds insane Why does it sound insane? Software written for the gov, and used by the gov, is inevitably paid with the tax money. It belongs to the taxpayer. IMO we should require all software paid for with our taxes to be developed as open source.

llamaLord 4y ago
What if the government can get better capability out of a SaaS product paid for by private capital than they can out of something they build themselves? Are we saying government's should just be locked into single-build custom software for all eternity? A single piece of software can be used by multiple different governments... In which case no one government has "paid for it". In that scenario, how is a government any different to any other B2B customer?
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  > What if the government can get better capability out of a SaaS product paid for by private capital than they can out of something they build themselves? That’s fine as long as the parts developed and paid for with taxes are open sourced. > Are we saying government's should just be locked into single-build custom software for all eternity? Not sure I follow. There’s no reason why software cannot be developed and supported by multiple for-profit entities. As long as the output is open source. > A single piece of software can be used by multiple different governments... In which case no one government has "paid for it". As a taxpayer, that’s not my problem. It is the problem of company behind the software. > In that scenario, how is a government any different to any other B2B customer? It’s different because the money the government operates on comes from taxes. The government should put the money back in the local economy and finance the development of the open source software. I understand that this is a very loaded statement.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  >A single piece of software can be used by multiple different governments... In which case no one government has "paid for it". That is the point of free software. NASA writes a software so why should any other person/government need to redo the same effort twice? They got their moneys worth for their work so if someone enjoys that later for free, why is that a problem? Suppose a small municipality needs a small backscratch software, they hire a local Dev, that Dev gets the job done and the municipality releases it as free software. Now why shouldn't any other govt anywhere in the world not leverage that? Why can't you pay Microsoft to develop a new feature in Linux kernel for example? Why do you assume a for profit entity has to keep their work proprietary? Do you know how freelancing or project based jobs work? A tender is made and L1 is chosen. The output should be open sourced so what's the problem?
jlpcsl 4y ago
> IMO we should require all software paid for with our taxes to be developed as open source. Could not agree more with this. It is also the only kind of software that enables real privacy and transparency and real freedom/sovereignty and possibility for right to repair. A lot of great info about this here on Public Money, Public Code page: https://publiccode.eu/ https://publiccode.eu/

izacus 4y ago

What were the amazing achievements of private corporations that European governments benefitted from directly? High quality, innovative products?

riedel 4y ago

IMHO this is taking it too far: free software first, means that it is not exclusive. Also it does not mean that you need to do it yourself. IMHO government contracts can help selling FOSS and thus sustaining FOSS. IMHO there is clearly a reason to drive quasi standards in areas that move quickly (aka implementations) and not rely only on clear standards. In cases where there is no fitting standard FOSS makes sense. One other thing is that should be weighted in procurement is that if one government body pays for development others should be able to profit. Vendors actually exploit the fragmentation of administration in Europe, reselling customized solutions and exploiting dependencies commercially. I do not that this has lead to much innovation in gov tech over the last year's...