4 ms·
Well stated. Another thing people can do is to disallow governments to use any software you produce by default. This doesn't change your obligations to the la
by hcfman 3y ago
Well stated.
Another thing people can do is to disallow governments to use any software you produce by default.
This doesn't change your obligations to the law but it does attach consequences to government decisions. Right now they make sweeping decisions to benefit large players and screw small players, which is like stealing from the poor to give to the rich. And worst, the whole thing is effectively retroactive to all of the people whose collective work gave them all the nice things.
Government should learn that decisions should be thought about very carefully and the only way to start a change in thinking is to attach consequences.
- rmbyrro 3y agoPoliticians don't care about this. It'll only impact the lives of developers working at governamental positions. This is also against the principle of OSS, which is to not discriminate about usage.
- hcfman 3y agoSo is that law. Small players would be discriminated against by virtue of not having the money to mitigate the legal risk.
- dns_snek 3y agoSuch limitation would effectively change the project's license, which would no longer be F/OSS approved. Most people and businesses don't evaluate custom licenses, they'll just skip your project because it doesn't have a well-known, approved license.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alwayslikethis 3y agoHow do you expect that to be respected when you have things like illegal surveillance or eminent domain? A well behaving government wouldn't be the target for this, and a badly behaving one wouldn't respect it anyways.
- Karellen 3y ago> Another thing people can do is to disallow governments to use any software you produce by default. So, instead of having governments become part of an open (software) commons, using software that costs less in taxes[0], which they would then have a stake in supporting and helping to make better, you're proposing that they purchase higher-cost proprietary software from private corporations, supporting their shareholders? Yeah, that'll help. > the only way to start a change in thinking is to attach consequences. That's not how FLOSS has got where it is today, so it is clearly not "the only way". FLOSS succeeds by allowing everyone in, in allowing them to reap the benefits first, so that they understand the value first-hand. Then, they come to depend on it, and when they see how much it would cost them to stop using FLOSS, do they realise how much they have invested in the ecosystem. Keeping people out means that they never get entangled in the first place. [0] Or, requires less money to be created, depending on your viewpoint.
- wolverine876 3y agoDidn't government do what you want in this case? A long deliberative, consultative process, addressing the needs of small players?
- x0x0 3y agoNo. They should have started by competently and carefully thinking through the consequences of the liabilities they were about to impose on open source, rather than obligating open source to expend limited resources explaining the obvious consequences. These problems were obvious to anyone competent who spent even a second thinking about it: people who give software away cannot accept liability for doing so, and the act of giving software away can't impose obligations to people who receive nothing or they will obviously have to stop.
- wolverine876 3y agoI'd much rather they consult open source people about open source needs, rather than try to guess. IME, you need to talk to the people on the front lines. In fact, unless I talk to people I know best, even family members, I don't really know.
- x0x0 3y agoThey didn't consult. They made open source go lobby them to avoid having to block the EU. That's the exact opposite of asking open source, in advance of legislation, what would happen if they did X.