7 ms·

public means public, if something is paid for by tax money, it should be licensed for public use

by drewmcarthur 2y ago

fsflover 2y ago
If you really think so, you should sign this petition: https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu
- drewmcarthur 2y ago
  signed, thank you for posting!
riedel 2y ago
This often a complicated case regarding competition law. In our neoliberal world giving away something for free that was subsidized is often seen as destroying market. The national CIO of Germany at one time recommended public bodies to us copyleft (also the EC opted for EPL) , rather than putting it into public domain. I also like this idea. However, this is fundamentaly different from the US. The German weather service even had to shutdown some functions in their free app due to a court order.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kioleanu 2y ago
  As a loophole, they ended up making the app paid as not constitute disloyal competition, which, depending on the angle makes sense: you have a competitor that you can actually never compete because regardless of what they do, their funding never runs out. It’s not a fair battle. On the other hand tho, wetter online were crying like little kids about an app that was doing what a government was supposed to do. https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-Urteil-Staatlicher-Wetterdienst-muss-Gratis-App-beschraenken-4681828.html https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-Urteil-Staatlicher-Wetterdiens...
- freedomben 2y ago
  Thanks, I strongly feel that publicy-funded software should be at least open source if not public domain, but the market impact is a wrinkle I hadn't considered before.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  I would rather have a model where anyone can contribute and can see the code, if they want to, than a model, where there is "competition" of who can make the shittiest but most profitable broadcast system.
- drewmcarthur 2y ago
  that’s incredibly silly
constantcrying 2y ago
One would hope so, but they don't even open the shows for public use, they don't even keep them around so people can watch the things they had to pay for.
blueflow 2y ago
I was about to call that the Rundfunkbeitrag is not legally a tax (Steuer), but a tax (Beitrag). For some reason that difference does not seem to exist in English and it translates to the same word??
- Grimeton 2y ago
  broadcast license fee/tv license fee
  - qwertox 2y ago
    TV license fee. This is how it's named in the UK. Broadcast license is what broadcasters pay for in order to be allowed to broadcast the licensed content.
    - usrusr 2y ago
      The key difference is that the government never touches the money anywhere between citizen and broadcaster, to avoid unwarranted influence. I assume that people who know the British term know that, as the German one is surely modeled after the BBC. I'm writing for other readers. The downside is that it's a per head (or per household) sum, not coupled to income like taxes would be. This is usually explained away by the fee being separate from the state, but the reality is that Germany actually has it all implemented, in the form of the opt-in "church tax" coupled to taxable income just like regular tax. Handled by the tax office, but not going too government coffers. Would be so easy to extend the implementation to public broadcasting, because you don't pay to consume the media, you pay to live in an environment that is not dominated by profit-driven broadcasting media. There are many negative things to say about our public broadcasting, but when I look at other countries that don't have strong public broadcasting, it's so much the lesser evil, totally worth the fee. (personally, I'd love to see that "church tax implementation" opened up to all kinds of opt-in membership organisations that would see value in income-coupled membership fees, I believe that a lot of good things could work that way, with people of all income levels enjoying an objectively fair way of contributing)

public means public, if something is paid for by tax money, it should be licensed for public use

fsflover 2y ago

If you really think so, you should sign this petition: https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu

drewmcarthur 2y ago
signed, thank you for posting!

riedel 2y ago

This often a complicated case regarding competition law. In our neoliberal world giving away something for free that was subsidized is often seen as destroying market. The national CIO of Germany at one time recommended public bodies to us copyleft (also the EC opted for EPL) , rather than putting it into public domain. I also like this idea. However, this is fundamentaly different from the US. The German weather service even had to shutdown some functions in their free app due to a court order.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kioleanu 2y ago
As a loophole, they ended up making the app paid as not constitute disloyal competition, which, depending on the angle makes sense: you have a competitor that you can actually never compete because regardless of what they do, their funding never runs out. It’s not a fair battle. On the other hand tho, wetter online were crying like little kids about an app that was doing what a government was supposed to do. https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-Urteil-Staatlicher-Wetterdienst-muss-Gratis-App-beschraenken-4681828.html https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-Urteil-Staatlicher-Wetterdiens...
freedomben 2y ago
Thanks, I strongly feel that publicy-funded software should be at least open source if not public domain, but the market impact is a wrinkle I hadn't considered before.
zelphirkalt 2y ago
I would rather have a model where anyone can contribute and can see the code, if they want to, than a model, where there is "competition" of who can make the shittiest but most profitable broadcast system.
drewmcarthur 2y ago
that’s incredibly silly

constantcrying 2y ago

One would hope so, but they don't even open the shows for public use, they don't even keep them around so people can watch the things they had to pay for.

blueflow 2y ago

I was about to call that the Rundfunkbeitrag is not legally a tax (Steuer), but a tax (Beitrag). For some reason that difference does not seem to exist in English and it translates to the same word??

Grimeton 2y ago
broadcast license fee/tv license fee
- qwertox 2y ago
  TV license fee. This is how it's named in the UK. Broadcast license is what broadcasters pay for in order to be allowed to broadcast the licensed content.
  - usrusr 2y ago
    The key difference is that the government never touches the money anywhere between citizen and broadcaster, to avoid unwarranted influence. I assume that people who know the British term know that, as the German one is surely modeled after the BBC. I'm writing for other readers. The downside is that it's a per head (or per household) sum, not coupled to income like taxes would be. This is usually explained away by the fee being separate from the state, but the reality is that Germany actually has it all implemented, in the form of the opt-in "church tax" coupled to taxable income just like regular tax. Handled by the tax office, but not going too government coffers. Would be so easy to extend the implementation to public broadcasting, because you don't pay to consume the media, you pay to live in an environment that is not dominated by profit-driven broadcasting media. There are many negative things to say about our public broadcasting, but when I look at other countries that don't have strong public broadcasting, it's so much the lesser evil, totally worth the fee. (personally, I'd love to see that "church tax implementation" opened up to all kinds of opt-in membership organisations that would see value in income-coupled membership fees, I believe that a lot of good things could work that way, with people of all income levels enjoying an objectively fair way of contributing)