7 ms·

Generally speaking, anything and everything paid for with taxpayer dollars should be made public. Public Monies Public Goods should be the absolute basis.

sigzero 2y ago
Disagree with that in the case of software.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  Why?
- tracer4201 2y ago
  What is the downside? I was thinking it could compromise software security, although my layman understanding is we’re better off if the open source community finds and makes problems visible? Or there are other software secrets that we wouldn’t want state adversaries to see, like things that block your access under export control laws?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- fortyseven 2y ago
  You provide a convincing argument. My mind is changed.
drewcoo 2y ago
So everything from classified material to office memos and personnel records? That's not gonna happen. If you, at home, pay someone to do work, what exactly do you own beyond the end product?
- chii 2y ago
  some slippery slope arguments are stupid, such as yours. Obviously you keep personnel records private (unless there's some law/court case requiring it be open). Classified material is already classified, and is kept private regardless - but there's a good argument to be made that there ought to be automatic declassification of material after a set amount of time (perhaps 20-30 years). Declassifying material is good for the public, as the ability to audit the past prevents future abuses.
- falcor84 2y ago
  This is a strawman. Not the parent, but I'm pretty sure that their intent is that it's the default that should be flipped. At the moment, all agencies default to confidential, and only share their work in particular cases; the proposed change would be of making all the work transparent unless explicitly classified. As a good example of how this approach is implemented, see Gitlab, which share pretty much everything except personal data of their employees and customers.
stonogo 2y ago
That's already the rule, but the DoD is the only agency who takes it seriously (examples are BRLCAD and FalconView). This doesn't stop unscrupulous contractors from copyrighting code and charging license fees (see: most DoE code, with exceptions like NWCHEM). I've often wondered why this hasn't resulted in any lawsuits; I suspect the reason is that nobody really cares.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Were you also afflicted with FalconView? My condolences.
  - stonogo 2y ago
    I'm not going to claim it was fun, but it sure beat using one of those standalone nav calculators!
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > That's already the rule Do you know what law requires it?
  - transpute 2y ago
    There was some encouragement in the 2018 NDAA, https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gao-dod-not-fully-implementing-open-source-mandates/ https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gao-dod-not-fully-implemen... > The report notes that the 2018 NDAA mandated DoD establish a pilot program on open source and a report on the program’s implementation. It also says that OMB’s M-16-21 memorandum requires all agencies to release at least 20 percent of custom-developed code as open-source, with a metric for calculating program performance.
  - stonogo 2y ago
    It's 17 USC 105. Most agencies work around it by hiring contractors, which then leaves the copyright in the hands of the contractor. It's a loophole I'd like to see closed.
hipadev23 2y ago
Sorry no. Because China. The US gov should be keeping their code, including their shitty overpriced contractor shit-code, private.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  The United States is a primarily open society. Keeping something as easily transportable as source code from another nation-state is nearly impossible. Even during the Cold War, the Soviets were able to accelerate the development of Buran due to how much information they were able to get about the US Space Shuttle. Things were far less connected and far more secure back then. Today it would be incredibly difficult to secure so much source code.
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
It's interesting that some municipalities copyright their laws to keep other municipalities from copying them without payment. On one hand, I can understand them seeing other places as freeloaders, benefiting from the taxpayer funded code of laws without their own taxpayers contributing to the creation of laws primarily applicable to local municipalities. On the other hand, it just seems weird for laws to restricted by copyright.

sigzero 2y ago

Disagree with that in the case of software.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
Why?
tracer4201 2y ago
What is the downside? I was thinking it could compromise software security, although my layman understanding is we’re better off if the open source community finds and makes problems visible? Or there are other software secrets that we wouldn’t want state adversaries to see, like things that block your access under export control laws?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
fortyseven 2y ago
You provide a convincing argument. My mind is changed.

drewcoo 2y ago

So everything from classified material to office memos and personnel records? That's not gonna happen. If you, at home, pay someone to do work, what exactly do you own beyond the end product?

chii 2y ago
some slippery slope arguments are stupid, such as yours. Obviously you keep personnel records private (unless there's some law/court case requiring it be open). Classified material is already classified, and is kept private regardless - but there's a good argument to be made that there ought to be automatic declassification of material after a set amount of time (perhaps 20-30 years). Declassifying material is good for the public, as the ability to audit the past prevents future abuses.
falcor84 2y ago
This is a strawman. Not the parent, but I'm pretty sure that their intent is that it's the default that should be flipped. At the moment, all agencies default to confidential, and only share their work in particular cases; the proposed change would be of making all the work transparent unless explicitly classified. As a good example of how this approach is implemented, see Gitlab, which share pretty much everything except personal data of their employees and customers.

stonogo 2y ago

That's already the rule, but the DoD is the only agency who takes it seriously (examples are BRLCAD and FalconView). This doesn't stop unscrupulous contractors from copyrighting code and charging license fees (see: most DoE code, with exceptions like NWCHEM). I've often wondered why this hasn't resulted in any lawsuits; I suspect the reason is that nobody really cares.

dgfitz 2y ago
Were you also afflicted with FalconView? My condolences.
- stonogo 2y ago
  I'm not going to claim it was fun, but it sure beat using one of those standalone nav calculators!
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> That's already the rule Do you know what law requires it?
- transpute 2y ago
  There was some encouragement in the 2018 NDAA, https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gao-dod-not-fully-implementing-open-source-mandates/ https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gao-dod-not-fully-implemen... > The report notes that the 2018 NDAA mandated DoD establish a pilot program on open source and a report on the program’s implementation. It also says that OMB’s M-16-21 memorandum requires all agencies to release at least 20 percent of custom-developed code as open-source, with a metric for calculating program performance.
- stonogo 2y ago
  It's 17 USC 105. Most agencies work around it by hiring contractors, which then leaves the copyright in the hands of the contractor. It's a loophole I'd like to see closed.

hipadev23 2y ago

Sorry no. Because China. The US gov should be keeping their code, including their shitty overpriced contractor shit-code, private.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
The United States is a primarily open society. Keeping something as easily transportable as source code from another nation-state is nearly impossible. Even during the Cold War, the Soviets were able to accelerate the development of Buran due to how much information they were able to get about the US Space Shuttle. Things were far less connected and far more secure back then. Today it would be incredibly difficult to secure so much source code.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago

It's interesting that some municipalities copyright their laws to keep other municipalities from copying them without payment. On one hand, I can understand them seeing other places as freeloaders, benefiting from the taxpayer funded code of laws without their own taxpayers contributing to the creation of laws primarily applicable to local municipalities. On the other hand, it just seems weird for laws to restricted by copyright.