5 ms·

Who defines what is a public good? Very few things truly come under this concept if you look at it objectively. However it is alway easy to find things that you

by pelle 17y ago

Who defines what is a public good? Very few things truly come under this concept if you look at it objectively. However it is alway easy to find things that you like and you think everyone else really should like that you might consider a public good. There are lots of examples of OSS being funded through a variety of ways without well meaning folks robbing other peoples money.

JesseAldridge 17y ago
Gaah. Only on Hacker News could I find so many objections to this straight-forward, widely accepted idea. From the first two sentences of the linked Wikipedia article: "In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good." I think you would be hard pressed to find a better example than open source software. Yes, obviously open source can be funded in a variety of ways, but supply falls short of demand due to the free-rider problem. How many more Rich Hickeys could we have if open-source software was a safe career decision?
- arohner 17y ago
  To a lot of entrepreneurs, especially Americans, "taxpayer funded" sends shivers. It implies bureaucracy, paperwork, lengthy approval times and political correctness. In many ways, it is the complete antithesis of the hacker-entrepreneur mindset. You're right that OSS is a great example of a free rider problem, but your cure is worse than the disease.
  - JesseAldridge 17y ago
    I understand that. I too am an American hacker-entrepreneur with an aversion to bureaucracy. But I think this is the least bad of the potential solutions. All we need is a few government sanctioned pg's, judging whether or not various projects are worthy of taxpayer dollars.
    - cschep 17y ago
      The very definition of being a 'pg' means that they won't want to work for the government, right?
      - JesseAldridge 17y ago
        I'm just using him as an example of an effective, minimal-bureaucracy provider of funding. A government funding organization wouldn't need to be a huge beast. Especially because the costs for OSS development are so low.
        davidw 17y ago
        Would he continue to be effective and minimally bureaucratic if he worked for the government? Who would ensure that he wasn't just giving money to his friends? Who would ensure that a pg type person got hired instead of someone without a clue but with good 'connections'? I use Ubuntu, which is composed of thousands of individual projects. Who would decide which ones get how much money? How about the ones developed by 'foreigners' (defined as !citizens of the country paying for development)? Could 'foreigners' just free-ride on whatever government paying for all this open source development? How about new, upcoming and potentially competitive projects? At what point should they get funded, or should the government attempt to pick a winner? I'm no libertarian, but the problems are not at all insignificant, and while I agree that software is close to being a public good (some exclusion is possible), I am by no means convinced that it ought to be supplied by the government.
        JesseAldridge 17y ago
        Like I said to axod, the NSF can serve as a model. It deals with many of the issues you raised.
        davidw 17y ago
        Except that tons of open source is produced by a few people working on their own, rather than as part of some big institution like a university. Like Clojure, for example... Also: my wife is a scientist, and I have come to realize that programming is a way more open, "stand on the shoulders of giants" field than theirs is in many ways.
- axod 17y ago
  I don't think it is a straight forward widely accepted idea. It's an extreme ideal that would be insanely problematic in practice. How does the government decide who gets funding to do 'open source' and who doesn't? How much are they allowed? How is their 'success/worth' measured? How does the government ensure they're getting value for money? What if the project becomes commercial? Do the government own some of that? Should they get some of their money back? Personally, I would be against government funding of OSS. Government is involved in too many things as it is. We don't need them involved in OSS as well.
  - JesseAldridge 17y ago
    An extreme ideal? Ever heard of the National Science Foundation? The US has been funding basic research with taxpayer dollars for over fifty years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation Actually, now that I think of it, Clojure may fall within their scope... http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503220&org=CISE&from=home http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503220&o... But they are a large organization, geared mainly toward industry and academia. They list a "small-project" as "up to $500,000 over three years". It's not quite the lightweight organization I would like to see. What I would really like to see is something like a cross between NSF and YCombinator.
    - axod 17y ago
      The thing is though, I don't see "Writing OSS" as research. Not really. It's not furthering our understanding of science. Don't get me wrong, it's extremely valuable, but it's "building stuff" rather than furthering science.
      - JesseAldridge 17y ago
        Writing OSS is close to research, especially when it comes to projects like new programming languages. Even then, my point was that government stepping in to deal with cases of market failure is not a radical idea. And the NSF has an answer to all of the questions you raised. The reason government funds research is because the value provided by basic research cannot be easily captured and sold. This same logic applies to OSS. Why is it ok for taxpayer dollars to go toward research but not toward building stuff that wouldn't otherwise get built?
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I think your argument lacks a crucial element. Since public resources are limited we cannot just fund everything that meets the criteria you cite. Tax-payer funded work comes with a process of prioritising and deciding what is important to the public and should therefore receive public funds. Someone has to decide whether building a particular new bridge or hospital is more or less important than Rich Hickey building Clojure or Monty Widenius building MySQL. Right now I don't see how open source development is connected to that democratic decision making process (apart from research grants) and I don't know that I want to see it connected to be honest.

by pelle 17y ago

JesseAldridge 17y ago

Gaah. Only on Hacker News could I find so many objections to this straight-forward, widely accepted idea. From the first two sentences of the linked Wikipedia article: "In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good." I think you would be hard pressed to find a better example than open source software. Yes, obviously open source can be funded in a variety of ways, but supply falls short of demand due to the free-rider problem. How many more Rich Hickeys could we have if open-source software was a safe career decision?

arohner 17y ago
To a lot of entrepreneurs, especially Americans, "taxpayer funded" sends shivers. It implies bureaucracy, paperwork, lengthy approval times and political correctness. In many ways, it is the complete antithesis of the hacker-entrepreneur mindset. You're right that OSS is a great example of a free rider problem, but your cure is worse than the disease.
- JesseAldridge 17y ago
  I understand that. I too am an American hacker-entrepreneur with an aversion to bureaucracy. But I think this is the least bad of the potential solutions. All we need is a few government sanctioned pg's, judging whether or not various projects are worthy of taxpayer dollars.
  - cschep 17y ago
    The very definition of being a 'pg' means that they won't want to work for the government, right?
    - JesseAldridge 17y ago
      I'm just using him as an example of an effective, minimal-bureaucracy provider of funding. A government funding organization wouldn't need to be a huge beast. Especially because the costs for OSS development are so low.
      - davidw 17y ago
        Would he continue to be effective and minimally bureaucratic if he worked for the government? Who would ensure that he wasn't just giving money to his friends? Who would ensure that a pg type person got hired instead of someone without a clue but with good 'connections'? I use Ubuntu, which is composed of thousands of individual projects. Who would decide which ones get how much money? How about the ones developed by 'foreigners' (defined as !citizens of the country paying for development)? Could 'foreigners' just free-ride on whatever government paying for all this open source development? How about new, upcoming and potentially competitive projects? At what point should they get funded, or should the government attempt to pick a winner? I'm no libertarian, but the problems are not at all insignificant, and while I agree that software is close to being a public good (some exclusion is possible), I am by no means convinced that it ought to be supplied by the government.
        JesseAldridge 17y ago
        Like I said to axod, the NSF can serve as a model. It deals with many of the issues you raised.
        davidw 17y ago
        Except that tons of open source is produced by a few people working on their own, rather than as part of some big institution like a university. Like Clojure, for example... Also: my wife is a scientist, and I have come to realize that programming is a way more open, "stand on the shoulders of giants" field than theirs is in many ways.
axod 17y ago
I don't think it is a straight forward widely accepted idea. It's an extreme ideal that would be insanely problematic in practice. How does the government decide who gets funding to do 'open source' and who doesn't? How much are they allowed? How is their 'success/worth' measured? How does the government ensure they're getting value for money? What if the project becomes commercial? Do the government own some of that? Should they get some of their money back? Personally, I would be against government funding of OSS. Government is involved in too many things as it is. We don't need them involved in OSS as well.
- JesseAldridge 17y ago
  An extreme ideal? Ever heard of the National Science Foundation? The US has been funding basic research with taxpayer dollars for over fifty years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation Actually, now that I think of it, Clojure may fall within their scope... http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503220&org=CISE&from=home http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503220&o... But they are a large organization, geared mainly toward industry and academia. They list a "small-project" as "up to $500,000 over three years". It's not quite the lightweight organization I would like to see. What I would really like to see is something like a cross between NSF and YCombinator.
  - axod 17y ago
    The thing is though, I don't see "Writing OSS" as research. Not really. It's not furthering our understanding of science. Don't get me wrong, it's extremely valuable, but it's "building stuff" rather than furthering science.
    - JesseAldridge 17y ago
      Writing OSS is close to research, especially when it comes to projects like new programming languages. Even then, my point was that government stepping in to deal with cases of market failure is not a radical idea. And the NSF has an answer to all of the questions you raised. The reason government funds research is because the value provided by basic research cannot be easily captured and sold. This same logic applies to OSS. Why is it ok for taxpayer dollars to go toward research but not toward building stuff that wouldn't otherwise get built?
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
I think your argument lacks a crucial element. Since public resources are limited we cannot just fund everything that meets the criteria you cite. Tax-payer funded work comes with a process of prioritising and deciding what is important to the public and should therefore receive public funds. Someone has to decide whether building a particular new bridge or hospital is more or less important than Rich Hickey building Clojure or Monty Widenius building MySQL. Right now I don't see how open source development is connected to that democratic decision making process (apart from research grants) and I don't know that I want to see it connected to be honest.