Free Software as a Public Good 445
acone asks: "Have any national governments taken measures to subsidize open source projects? I'm aware that many have endorsed Linux in particular, and free software in general, but I was wondering about actual funding. I ask because the notion of a good built and maintained by the community almost inevitably suggests that such be treated as a public good. Many of the public goods we now take for granted--such as police, public libraries, and public fire departments--were historically provided either by private enterprises or by loosely-organized volunteers, neither of which have proven nearly as effectively for the common goods as their current government-run equivalents. An excellent example is the organization of the police force, libraries and fire department in colonial Philadelphia, in which these services became established in a very grassroots manner, then gradually gained acceptance as something that the state should provide. This pattern looks temptingly applicable to free software. In addition to the current, community-based mechanisms in which free software is developed, wouldn't it be beneficial to have dedicated groups of professional free software developers, paid by national governments to serve the overall interests of society? Seems to me like such would be a Good Thing."
SkoleLinux (School Linux) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SkoleLinux (School Linux) (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if they asked for USD 27,670... (Score:3, Funny)
=)
There won't be some "Office of Open Source" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There won't be some "Office of Open Source" (Score:4, Informative)
Thus, all of the code written by government employees for government business, if released to the public, is public domain.
For example, check out my computer forensic tools: md5deep [sf.net] and foremost [sf.net]. Your tax dollars at work!
KDE and Germany (Score:4, Informative)
Re:KDE and Germany (Score:5, Informative)
The German government is funding open source email encryption software under project Aegypten. Some of this is KDE software, for example work on the kmail mail client.
See Project Aegypten Home Page [gnupg.org] for details.
Re:KDE and Germany (Score:4, Informative)
Re:KDE and Germany (Score:2)
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, I'm just trying to avoid the impression that Free/Open development always chases Microsoft's tailligh
Free Software and the German government (Score:3, Informative)
The other high-profile project funded by the German government is Kollaborate. This was done by the "BSI" (Federal Agency for IT security), which is known to be very Linux-friendly (and equally MS-unfriendl
Someone's been reading Lessig... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its called socialism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes socialism seems to be the answer for dealing with the digital world, its not the answer for the physical world but definately for the digital world.
One of these things is not like the other.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Far better would be something like the Ford Foundation giving grants to folks after they have a track record.
Re:One of these things is not like the other.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The FSF got its start by selling tapes of the Emacs source code and precompiled binaries! You could also get GCC+binutils+stuff tapes and X11R4 stuff.
They were $150+ a pop for a while. [geocrawler.com]
Don't be fooled (Score:2)
Re:One of these things is not like the other.... (Score:2)
It seems to me that the very idea of paying someone to write free software is the very antithesis of what free software is all about.
It seems to me that you've no idea what free software is about. Rerhaps reading this [gnu.org] will help.
GNU page? (Score:2)
I agree that grandparent was a tad confused, but sending him over to the GNU page probably isn't going to give him the sort of clarity on the issue that he seems to need.
Public AND Private Funding are both Appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you don't know much about free software. Free software is about freedom, not price. GNU and the FSF have sold free software since the 1980s, on magnetic tape and later CD ROM. Some of their products were quite pricy (and available for gratis download besides), but they still made some money selling the media, as the convinience was worth it to some.
Government funded public works is a Good Thing(tm), whether it is highways, the last mile of connectivity (which alas, is privately owned by local monopoly barons in most, but not all, of the US), or basic software infrastructure used to hold and manipulate public data.
We would never tolerate our highway system being held hostage by a single company. Why on earth would we tolerate such a thing with our public information?
As for private funding, that is all well and good, but private funding has limitations (such as the profit motive, which works sometimes but, contrary to right-wing myth, does not always work or yeild the best results). Public funding has its limitations as well, but pulling projects that are serving the public interest because of no immediate exploitable profit generally isn't one of them.
Indeed, the best public goods are those which include both private and public funding, where the limitations of one are generally countered by the strengths of the other. Examples include, but are not limited to, academia and university research.
Re:Public AND Private Funding are both Appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
Government funded public works is a Good Thing(tm)...
Government funding is like crack--it's nice at first, but eventually you end up prostituting yourself.
The Free (beer/freedom) model has worked well so far. Would you really feel better if the government had a bigger hand in it?
Re:Public AND Private Funding are both Appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
And where exactly is the freedom on a goverment funded project? Or do you think they will pay for just any ol' program for any purpose?
We tolerate it every day. The company frequently uses it's influence to withold money because the company doesn't like how local folks are behaving. The company also curries favor by building highways
Re:Public AND Private Funding are both Appropriate (Score:3)
Software infrastructure can be an enabler of interstate commerce just like interstate roads were. More and more business is being done over the internet. And much internet foundation code was created under the direction of the government. It started out as a DARPA project.
-
Re:Public AND Private Funding are both Appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
What's missing from this discussion is a definition of what a public good is:
Free software is indeed a public good because by definitoin it is difficult to exclude other people from using it and other than the cost of bandwidth to make the code available my using doesn't prevent anyone else using it. The problem with public goods is that most people want them, but no one has much of an incentive to provide them individually --- which is why public goods are typically provided by the government. Public funding of public goods does not "distort the market" because the non-excludability of public goods means there's not much of a market for them in the first place.Anything that can be copied digitally becomes more and more like a public good everyday...
Re:Government needs software, too (Score:2, Insightful)
This points out a problem with this. The GPL is based on Copyright Law, your right to copy the software is granted under the GPL only if you follow the provisions of the GPL. Since the Government can't hold copyrights, how could the Government fund copyrighted development?
Now that I type this, I rea
Re:Government needs software, too (Score:2)
That's not the case. It used to be that the US Government could not create software under copyright (I believe that has changed, but I'm not entirely certain), but it could hold copyrights transferred to it. As a result, software would be developed by a contractor, and the contract would stipulate tha
Re:Government needs software, too (Score:2)
Re:Government needs software, too (Score:2)
Government Subsidy (Score:2, Informative)
So yes, if you present your plan to the Canadian Government, anyway, in good terms, showing that it will benefit all; it is easy to obtain a subsidy.
Privatize all public goods NOW! (Score:2)
(It's a joke, Republicans. I promise, if you learn to laugh at yourselves, I will learn to laugh when you call me a dirty longhair commie-pinko pervert.)
Government funding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Government funding (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone has an agenda.
Re:Government funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Government funding (Score:2)
Re:Government funding (Score:3, Insightful)
I would go so far as to argue that the freedom from corporate and goverment influence is one of the most essential notions surrounding the development of free software. Although, if a government is willing to concede that open code is of higher
Re:Government funding (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt most governments would agree to sponsor something if they could not exercise tight control over it.
Aparently you've never heard of DARPA and this little thing called the internet. Yes, the government usually funds things that are in its best interest. However, agencies like DARPA have historically funded very long range visionary and exploratory research.
It is difficult for the government to have tight control over something like that.
Governments (Score:2)
You mentioned police, fire departments, teachers, etc. Why not give these folks a raise instead?
Re:Governments (Score:2)
That is how my employers contract is written. That is a basic understanding for government contracting.
Now service contracts with the government where software is developed may be another matter. That is a grey area that is usually negotiated with the vendor before the contract is let.
Maybe... (Score:2, Interesting)
China?
Don't know for sure, but it would be a clear candidate to subsidize
Another case is Germany paying for that KDE project... how was it kalled? Kroupware? But that's not subsidizing...
I think the day is near (Score:2)
when we'll wake up and realize that our computing infrastructure is just as important to our modern society as roads, schools, and hospitals.
Does that mean that the populace, through the means of the government, will ever arrange for public funding to develop and maintain an operating system and telecommunications infrastructure? Unlikely in my lifetime.
DARPA (Score:2, Informative)
Business (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, I do think it can be used for to help society in general.
But I feel it should be written under BSD-like(public domain) license, putting under a GPL-like license is just wrong for this situation.
Re:Business (Score:2)
[...]
But I feel it should be written under BSD-like(public domain) license, putting under a GPL-like license is just wrong for this situation.
Yes, I love to pay taxes to develop software so that $COMPANY can appropriate it so that I have to pay to use it.
Either way, someone loses. If the $PUBLIC_SOFTWARE is GPL, then $COMPANY can choose to not use it.
Re:Business (Score:2)
If there is public domain software, then a company can sell it cheaper because much development has already done.
I am a little dense so please explain.
America's Army game? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:America's Army game? (Score:2)
G-Men and OSS (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically I would worry that if a burocracy was added to the development process, it would end up mucking the development process up.
However, I'm pretty sure that some OSS softwares are directly descended from various government projects that were developed under the GPL or made open source after completion. (can someone help me with examples, or tell me I'm wrong).
Who funded BSD? TCP/IP? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who funded BSD? TCP/IP? (Score:5, Interesting)
One day, though, governments might find interesting to fund software that are essential to the internet (like, servers and clients for DNS, http, e-mail, etc).
Re:Who funded BSD? TCP/IP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes, I don't see why folks complain that MS used some government source code in a product. If they want it to become a standard, then everyone needs to be able to freely integrate it into their systems, including commercial interests.
Re:Who funded BSD? TCP/IP? (Score:2)
The Problem is that it's Slowing Down (Score:2)
A really good page which deals pa
Re:Who funded BSD? TCP/IP? (Score:3, Interesting)
The GNU Manifesto and the Software Tax (Score:2)
Free Software Pledge Breaks (Score:2)
Scary thought... Commissioner Bill... (Score:2, Interesting)
Code is International... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some United Forces (UN) but they really arent a major say in what goes on (US war on "Terrorists").
If governments have thier say, they will think what they choose to write is the right way. Governments of different nations dont always agree (AKA WAR).
Whats to stop the US government to hire more professional coders to get more of what they want to see in OSS
Yes OSS has the branches and someone has the overall say in what makes it in and what does not but when was the last time you heard someone disagreeing with the government and not getting some sort of herassment for it (raisethefist.com) ?
Do you really want to add that much more politics into OSS?
Do you really want to wait for the government to finish coding something that you need to use (we all know how governement deadlines work!!!) ?
Just my
Read the news... (Score:2)
the united states (Score:4, Informative)
I don't want to Slashdot the particular office that funds my work, but if you poke around on the NIH web site (www.nih.gov) for informatics-related programs, you can find some good examples of programs that fund software development. If you poke further, you'll find that some of those projects develop GPLed software.
I don't know that this is the ultimate expression of a government supporting free software as a public good, but it's certainly an area in which you'll find examples of government-funded free software that's designed to promote public health and/or basic science.
Yes yes yes. Start with voting software. (Score:2)
Who Does this Benifit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Free Software != Needed for Society (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand how the poster of this article goes off and talks about how the police and fire deptartments all started and then compares it to FS. Why? Because these were public services that were needed by the people for their own good and for the better of the country and the society. This wasn't something that needed competition to stay alive. At this point it is a basic need. And it was then too, we just didn't realize it.
FS is NOT a
Quotes to keep in mind, open-source socialists! (Score:2)
- Calvin Coolidge, POTUS
Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce, rapscallion
"I understand small business growth. I was one."
- George W. Bush, sound biter
Careful with the term 'public good' (Score:5, Interesting)
Software certainly meets the non-rivalry requirement, but non-excludability is not met given the current legal atmosphere concerning the concept of intellectual property.
That said, there are cases where introducing excludability means that what used to be public goods can now be provided through market mechanisms: toll roads are not public goods, but universally accessible roads are. Government intervention is required to provide the latter, but (ideally) not the former. The same can be said for private security forces as a replacement for police. You could even slap gates around libraries so that only those who pay can gain access. The debate then turns to what resources *should* have non-excludability -- what goods and services should any person be able to expect from their government?
Outside that debate, you cannot eliminate non-excludability from certain items: national defense and global climate quality come to mind.
If You Think The Private Sector Is Dilbertized... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think having to fill out forms to requisition a 256M stick of RAM from the IT Department is oppressive...
If you think having to fill out more forms and get them signed by your manager, the IT manager, and the Purchasing Department's manager, and then wait two days for Purchasing to order the RAM is unproductive and oppressive...
If you think having to fill out even more forms the next week when you find that the fuckup in Purchasing bought two sticks 256M of PC133 SDRAM (or worse, one stick of 512M DDR instead of two sticks of 256M DDR for your dual-channel workstation), because "You wanted memory, and we found that PC133 was cheaper"... is assinine, counterproductive, and oppressive...
NOTICE: As a condition of receiving a grant under the Patriots' Freedom Software Allowance Act, I affirm, under penalty of perjury that Software developed under the Patriots' Freedom License will in no way be used to transfer data by Specially Designated Nationals, nor any data in violation of the PATRIOT Act, nor will it be used by any third party to facilitate violations of the Communications Decency Act. Software will not be made available to Migrant Employees of any Railroad as per the Railroad Workers' Protection Act of 1966, except such Migrant Employees of Railroads covered under the Railroad Pensioners' Guarantee Act of 1968 (amended 1972), and will comply with all other ordinances and conditions of local, state, and Federal law, subject to amendment.
Friday Afternoon Paradox: Free Software is a Public Good, but the instant it becomes a Public Goods, it ceases to be Free Software.
Sure, as long as the license is right (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL is probably the reason that the government would be unable to just take the reigns of free software funding, like they took over the operation of libraries. Simply because it is counterproductive for the government, which has effectively unlimited resources, to compete with commercial entities. Nobody wins in that situation, not the gov't, not the companies, and not the consumer. GPL code cannot be used commercially in a conventional sense, and if the government were to put serious efforts behind it, they could wind up destroying a lot of commercial enterprises, not to mention wasting taxpayer dollars for a while as they duplicate a service which is already being provided to the public. Eventually, once commercial developers go under, they would just be providing the same service more expensively (government is generally less efficient than private enterprise).
Developers who use the GPL have already decided that their software should not be a public good in the sense that libraries are (in that anyone could go to a library, read books on a subject, and then resell what they learned for money). Even though the knowledge to understand GPL code might be expensive to get, and difficult to package in a useful way, they insist that anyone should be able to redistribute such an effort, for free, in exchange only for recognition for the developer. This effectively makes knowledge easy to exchange, but at a cost of making it worthless, unsellable.
A BSD license on goverment developed code might not be much better initially, as what could result would be the government doing work for commercial companies for free (from their point of view), while they continue to charge comparable prices for their work of packaging the software. Eventually, though, prices would be driven down, as the software itself became a commodity, and the knowledge of how to package it was the only way companies could compete. This would be software as a public good, in a general sense. Companies like the initial consequence of this scenario, and fear the second, so they want to make sure that things stay in the first stage, where the government is doing a certain amount of work for them, without eating their lunch.
I think if the government were to step in and make certain kinds of software (starting with the most often used pieces of code, the OS) a commodity, it could have very positive results for society. On the other hand, open source developement is already going on, so maybe they don't need to be involved, except for preserving the legal conditions that allows this to happen.
Answer: No (Score:4, Insightful)
The "mechanisms" you mention are "services" (libraries, police, and fire). The government provides these for the good of all people
What you want is a "product" and not a "service". What you're asking for is for the government to provide free every product which does "good for the public". This would include, soap, laundry detergent, deoderant (heh), cars, bikes, clothes, scissors, pens, pencils, paper, toilet paper, paper clips, computers, books, magazines (aka toilet paper), etc etc (you get my point).
So what you're asking for is the government to determine what "product" is for the public good, subsidize it to limit business opprotunities to provide individuals who are looking to earn a living and profit from their work. Not to mention stock holders who make money on the profits made by companies who sell these products.
Doing this would not only affect the general moral of workers who provide such services, but will put thousands of people out of work while at the same time increasing our taxes to figures that I don't even want to imagine.
Generally, bad idea. Period. Besides, this "public good" is only to be for the public good of about 1/4 the US population.
Oh and by the way, most towns in the U.S. still have volunteer services where very little money is provided by the town.
Re:Answer: No (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the question is asking whether the government should fund the development of software that's freely available for the public good
China (Score:3, Interesting)
Me, I think Bill Gates should get the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing them together.
Re:China (Score:3, Informative)
Be careful what you wish for... (Score:2, Insightful)
First off: The government should subsidize Free Software [fsf.org] not open source software as a whole, if it subsidizes anything.
Second: I don't think that the governemt should have any direct control over Free Software or the manufacture therof. Police and fire departments, as well as schools and other public institutions, are completely government controlled. I don't want the government to be able to make arbitrary rules for the code that I want to write as Free Software, which could feasibly happen if the g
It's been done... (Score:2)
Our Expense would Benefit Everyone (Score:2)
Why should we pay for other countries to have better software. They can buy from our companies and provide jobs and tax money to our gov.
I'm all for
Attention OT: Not really an excellent example (Score:2)
An excellent example is the organization of the police force, libraries and fire department in colonial Philadelphia, in which these services became established in a very grassroots manner, then gradually gained acceptance as something that the state should provide.
As a director of one of the oldest fire departments in the Philadelphia area (Eagle Fire Company - 1822), I can tell you that it is not such a great analogy. Started as a group of volunteers, and it still is. As a matter of fa
Software as a Public Service (Score:5, Funny)
The Government of the United States of America would like to announce that it has established a Department of Software (DoS). The DoS will work to develop software for the people. What will this mean for you, the American people? Here are some highlights:
The Government is exicted to be your new provider of public software! If you have a piece of software you want written, contact a local lobbiest or special interest group. Others need not submit applications.
Re:Software as a Public Service (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft believes "Operation Half-Priced Software" (OS/2, for short) will make its software more competitively priced. CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying, "We belive that OS/2 software is superior to DoS software and we think users will be willing to pay a premium for it."
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, who do you think paid for the earliest work on Linux? The Finnish government, of course! Like in many European countries, the taxpayer gives grants to students, and that's most likely what Linus lived on.
NO NO NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
1. OSS developers develop what they like, not what they get paid for. Often, they are able to make money supporting what they give away for free, or by cross licensing, or other development. This is the why OSS generates good software, the developers d
sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, such a program would require a careful balance between funding OSS and not killing our technology economy. We live in a capitalist society, and if our government takes action that hurts businesses that are considered to be doing an "OK" job (MS) then it seems a little contradictory to capitalism.
Funding and providing Fire Departments is different because not only are these Public Good, they determined that they are necessary for healthy living (not dying.) Software is nowhere near this level of importance to most people. The government has no motivation to stop software businesses from doing what they do. If the government needs something (like TCP/IP) then they commission it and it gets made.
Separation of Church and state (Score:3, Insightful)
Much like the church is best off separated from the state, so the free software "movement", as a philosophy, cannot survive if institutionalized as a part of government. Free software organizations already get government and corporate grants, support and development through educational institutions, and widespread acceptance from the technical community, all without having a "Department of Public Software"
Funding = wrong way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
Now imagine a scenario where there is governmnet funding. Out of work programmers, people who took a semester of pascal in highschool and are now looking for cash, etc., will go looking for projects to do to get in on the funding chuckwagon rather than responding to an existing need. Other hangers-on will attempt to join, not because they know the subject well or feel the same need to create a particular bit of software, but because they want in on the $$$. Arguments over which code to include would be biased by the author's desire to prove to the funding source that they had added the most lines of code, and not on technical merrit. Overall, it would become the opposite of what a good open source project should be.
It Depends (Score:3)
First, it depends on whether or not *all* the taxpayers get to use the software. That means Public Domain or BSD, not GPL. As much as you might love the GPL, you can't deny it's unfair for those who follow the software ownership business model to be forced to pay taxes so that their business can be undermined. A PD or BSD release puts both GPL'd and proprietary projects on an even footing.
Second, it depends on whether or not the market is already providing the service. For example, a new government *NIX-based OS is hardly needed, what with all the companies producing such things in a seemingly endless variety. This applies for anything, not just software. The government should only provide a service when the market fails to provide the service, and the services is deemed necessary to the public good.
That said, the question is moot anyway. The government already sponsors free software. Google around and you'll see that grants specify that copyrighted material produced by grant recipients is "retained by the grantee, but must be published in a manner that allows others to benefit from the research" or something to that effect.
In the past, people slapped "academic use only" clauses on their software. Lately, they've been GPL'ing is a step in the right direction, but not quite all the way to PD/BSD.
It's understandable that researchers want to retain their rights, but when it comes to selling licenses under something other than GPL or academic use, there is a culture of $call pricing which really sucks.
You know $call pricing. That's where the cost of licensing is to call the researcher and negotiate some horrendous deal. Typicly, only corporations are invited into such a deal. A price schedule is never published. It's like dealing with embedded board manufacturers. Yuck.
I can understand why they want grantees to retain rights, but they should require the publication of a price schedule for non-GPL usage.
Now, if grantees had to PD or BSD their work, what would happen? There might be fewer grant applicants, which could be perceived as a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it. It's good if you're swinging the budget axe, and bad if you think there should be lots of research. However, with fewer grantees you could pay more to each grantee to offset the fact that they have less control over their work.
It would be interesting to see how many grantees are actually selling their work anyway. I bet a lot of stuff is just sitting there at Universities, getting stale, because it was easier for people to roll their own than deal with $call pricing. Either that, or the researchers left academe and went to work for industry. That's a waste, and obviously not a public good.
So. Is Free Software a Public Good? It depends.
In the end, why should they? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it.
proprietary software sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
(Warning: the following post is very glib (but not really funny). It doesn't take itself too seriously so you shouldn't either.)
Proprietary software sucks. Don't take my word for it. Just read the article [slashdot.org].
I mean, after all--if the proprietary software is already buggy, if the companies charge for the tech support as well, then what is the company really providing for the user? Clever marketing? Ease of aquisition of software (can be downloaded or purchased from a store)? Easy installation?
Okay, that's it guys. If the proprietary software really does suck that much, then all the Open Source community needs to do is (somehow) run a huge marketing campain and make the auto-installers work better. The tech support might suck, and the software might be full of bugs, but that's not any different from commercial software. (at least according to that one, rather short, CNN article) The only remaining barriers are lack of knowelge from the general public and difficulties with installation.
German Government (Score:3, Informative)
But there is a lot of OSS activity at lower levels, for example the Java Anon Proxy (JAP) project as a joint venture between Dresden University and the privacy commissioner of Land Schleswig-Holstein, several School Linux Projects, a large scale Linux deployment for schools around the city of Moers (serving 250.000 users), and many more projects at a similar level.
In studies on Open Source Development, many European countries come out "on top", that is the number of developers from European countries is higher than it should be according to their proportional headcount. Such Government subsidized OSS projects and deployments are a strong factor, creating a climate where OSS can flourish and produce many good projects and products.
Re:in short, no (Score:5, Insightful)
and not everyone is driving his car on that road, but the gov payed for it. and not everyone is going to the public library, but the gov payed for it, and so on.
oss is just like a library: free information for everyone.
Re:in short, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:in short, no (Score:2)
I think you have a few errors in your logic.
As for the hobbyist... not all open source software is written by hobbyists... some is actually done by commercial ventures...
Re:in short, no (Score:3, Insightful)
My personal take on it is that the government should cut back on purchasing proprietary software and use free software whenever possible. Those savings could then be used to cut taxes and give taxpayers back more of their paycheck. I don't like the idea of the government handing cash t
Re:in short, no (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all public goods only need to benefit enough people to enjoy a majority support. Does the military benefit everyone? How about the people who disagree with how the military is being used? Does the bus system benefit everyone? Does welfare benefit everyone?
Arguably all of these do support everyone; that is, everyone benefits by living in a country where the destitute don't have to resort to theft to avoid starvation, everyone benefits from living in a society which is well protected from foreign aggressors, and society as a whole benefits from having people who are incapable of passing a driving test, or unable to afford a car, never the less able to hold a job and be productive so that they won't have to live on welfare.
Likewise open software benefits everyone -- if not directly then indirectly -- in lower prices for services, in greater productivity, resulting in greater general prosperity, in better and cheaper communication technologies, and greater efficiency for those areas that open software is able to cover.
Where would we be without open software. Let's see. No email, no Internet (no DNS), no TCP/IP, no world wide web, no interoperable software. Novell, Microsoft, MacOS, and the mainframes would all still be separate islands.
Yeah, I guess that doesn't add up to squat.
Re:in short, no (Score:2)
Re:in short, no (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, by that rational there should be no Coast Guard since a significant amount of the population is landlocked. There should be no federal funding for the INS to increase patrols on the Mexico-U.S. border since that isn't much of a problem to the citizens in Minnesota. Heck, there shouldn't be federal funding for higher educational institutions because they do not benefit every citizen directly.
A typical response
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Much of the web is run on Free Software, and most (if not all) packets will cross routers, firewalls or bridges that are running Free Software at some point during thier journey.
In fact, thier own computers may be using code that was directly derived from Free Software, such as the improved network stack in Windows (from BSD, IIRC).
The world of propietary, closed source software has benefitted greatly from Free Software development, and this has benefitted EVERYONE, even if they know nothing about it.
Including you.
Also, there is no precident to a "benefit EVERYONE" requirement for government funding (at least in the U.S.).
One example of government funding for a select few persons would be the funding of natural disater insurance programs for persons who choose to build thier houses on flood plains and on beaches. Government funded flood plain insurance enables people to live along rivers and the same coverage allowed the wealthier americans to ensure that most of us could not afford to live near the beach. (Before natural disaster relief plans covered beachfront property, it was quite inexpensive to have a house on or near the beach, but most chose not to because of the possibility of storm damage or erosion.)
Another would be farming subsidies for tobbacco farmers. I fail to see how one could conscrue such funding as "beneficial to EVERYONE".
Re:Good idea but. (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally don't see this going anywhere though because it really is a community effort. Almost like voting in a way. If you want a feature, simply "vote" it into an implementation. That can be done by actually programming it or requesting the developers to add it.
Government employees could work out specific algor
Re:Good idea but. (Score:2, Informative)
Hence the free-as-in-speech. We WANT anyone to be able to do anything with the open source projects. Linus, however, maintains the official "untainted" kernel tree. You use his when you want the raw kernel, and apply patches such as openmosix (http://openmosix.sf.net [sf.net]) when you require extra functionality. The infrastructure is there, but it's also circumventable if it doesn't meet your needs.
No, bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Grow up. The day you have your government paying money for open source development is the day that Bill Gates will show up to take that money, and have your taxes pay him for the work he has his people do to that open source software, making sure that it does what he want's it to do, not you.
Re:No, bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right! The bureaucrats who actually dole out the money would ultimately control the spending.
What is the obsession with everyone wanting the government to pay for everything? Has no one figured out that all government money comes from (is extorted from) the taxpayer? Why not have the government provide everyone with a house? a car? food? clothing? Those are all important! Entertainment is important, too, so "free" movie passes for everyone! Free vacations! Why, fiber-optic 10GB broadband to
Re:No, bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Taxes, here in Sweden, are high as hell. From what I've heard, we've got like the highest taxes in the world, end of discussion. However, we have a very high social standard. Those taxes do good. The hospitals are all owned by the state and provide a great service to the people who needs it for a much cheaper service than it would be provided otherwise. F
Re:No, bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
And who do you suggest gets that special funding for what the "public wants"? Once you pay some 14 year old kid who just happens to be the child of a Chicago democrat party official, how do you avoid paying every open source developer out there, particularly those of core key components? Or do you just thumb your nose at them and tell them you expect them to keep contributing their efforts for free while their taxes are being given to projects that they don't consider worthy of effort?
it's called a journal (Score:2)