Comment on We tested a transport app that cost the public £4m against Google Maps
mannycalavera@feddit.uk 2 days ago
I presume this £4m app paid for by the public purse is open source so that we can all see and benefit from it? Anyone got a link?
Gargantuan@piefed.social 2 days ago
why would that mean it has to be open source? Should we be open sourcing all our defece projects too?
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Yes.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk 2 days ago
It’s a transport app. Not the code to the nuclear defences.
Gargantuan@piefed.social 1 day ago
that’s not my point. it’s the assumption that anything tax payer funded should be open source by default.
as a tax payer, I’m not sure I want other countries freeloading on our investments.
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
“I have helped pay for something good. More people could benefit from it, at no additional cost to me. But I’d rather they not.”
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Ugh. Money is a curse
Magnum@infosec.pub 21 hours ago
Thank you sir for making this planet a living hell
scratchee@feddit.uk 1 day ago
I do, when those investments can be copied for free
tetris11@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Then it dies as an investment, relegated to the halls of decay like other closed source apps as soon as it loses relevance
Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Maybe you should only use it based on how much you paid/contributed. You don’t want to free load off other tax payer’s money
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Great point. If someone else may derive value from it, then it is a lost cause and no one should have it.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Ugh. Money is a curse
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
That might not be practical. But everything else done with public money should be open source. A lot of these software projects are more or less necessary for every city globally. Collaborating on a few apps and programmes is a lot more sensible then everyone having an app custom build by a contractor.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Public money of one jurisdiction shouldn’t necessarily pay for things so a different jurisdiction gets them for free. It’s an opportunity for the city to generate some revenue to offset other costs. Or it could be structured as a non-profit effort to develop open source, paid by ongoing grants from a number of cities that would use it - that would be nice, but difficult to orchestrate .
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
See my replay to the other comment.
I really do believe that the most sensible way to formalise it is just requiring publically funded code to be open source. Requires less complexity than co-op, and works out the same if enough countries opt-in.
See this as an example:
github.com/Governikus/AusweisApp/
…europa.eu/…/european-union-public-licence_en
20dogs@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Right, so keep it simple and just open source it
Gargantuan@piefed.social 1 day ago
so any other country should get free access to the all software the UK tax payer invested in?
nah. I don’t think so.
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
And the UK taxpayer might save money by using open source projects funded by other municipality in different countries. This is already the standard for some EU projects.
Could some countries ‘freeload’? Sure. But what’s the actual cost for that? The people in those places getting better software, while the original users are no worse off?
Could also help with less wealthy countries having access to software they couldn’t otherwise afford to develop.
Don_alForno@feddit.org 1 day ago
Oh no! Somebody else might benefit from something you would’ve made anyway, at no additional cost to you! The horror!
20dogs@feddit.uk 1 day ago
We also get free development and contributions from others.
Hegar@fedia.io 2 days ago
Open source defeces projects do sounds pretty shit.
apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 days ago
Security by obscurity doesn’t exist, so perhaps yes.