3 ms·
> It's also good to keep in mind that this is an unpaid hobby project. That's the root cause. At some point a corp/gov consortium needs to adopt key projects a
by jvanderbot 3y ago
> It's also good to keep in mind that this is an unpaid hobby project.
That's the root cause. At some point a corp/gov consortium needs to adopt key projects and hire out the maintainers and give them real power and flexibility, perhaps similar to the way a nation might nationalize key infrastructure.
But this is against the core ethos at some level. Freedom and safety can be antagonistic.
- none_to_remain 3y agoAvoid compromise with one simple trick: surrender to the attackers
- jvanderbot 3y agoI don't understand how "Accept public money to work full time on key software" is surrender, but I think everyone misunderstood what I said, which usually means I didn't say what I meant.
- maerF0x0 3y ago> gov consortium Personally I wouldnt trust a govt to not backdoor everything.
- jvanderbot 3y agoA consortium is a great way to get money and power into those maintainers. Never said they should take the power from them or provide code. I think people are hearing their own mind here, not mine.
- tamimio 3y agoYou are implying that governments are more technically competent and more trustworthy than open source communities..
- jvanderbot 3y agoI said nothing of the sort. I'm implying they are richer.
- mttpgn 3y agoMany open source projects often already do receive US government funding, mostly through an onerous grant-application process. Nationalizing American open source projects could make them operate more like European open source where their EU funding is open and clear. The detrimental trade-off, however, is that the American agencies most capable to support and contribute directly to infrastructure security have burned away all trust from the rest of the world. Direct contributions directly from those USG agencies would reduce global trust in those projects even worse.