________________________________________________________________________________
The new coalition really tries to get on the good side of younger tech people. I don't mind that at all. I think this doesn't have to be a dogma, but it would provide transparency and clarity. You also might get free audits which would build trust. Very good overall.
"Public money, public code for every other government to grab without having to pay for it"
Your write this like it'd be a bad thing?
It's not only that others can grab your software for free, it's also the other way round - resulting in way fewer effort, cost, increased stability/quality etc for everyone.
That's the point of it.
If we would do traffic like we do IT today every city would have their own graphic designer coming up with Stop and Yield signs.
No, every city would license the $BigCorp logos for Stop and Yield and let $BigCorp police the streets. The logos would be updated frequently and drivers would need to have mandatory new training. Some cities would have a cheaper license in exchange for requiring citizens to share their movement data with $BigCorp.
To get from A to B, drivers would have to pass through $BigMac and wait 1 minute with the option to buy a 'meal' and continue on quicker.
land of the freest!
> That's the point of it.
I would argue that this is a side effect. The point is: code paid for with taxpayers money is not some proprietary bigco ip.
Yeah, but these are intended side effects:
- less duplication of work (=spending of tax money) between structurally very similar communes
- less lock-in that keeps you bound to that one corp forever (=more incentives for them to deliver good work for the money)
- potential collaboration and improvements from outside actors (private persons, other communes, organizations, companies, ...)
The idea is basically: if we need to spend money for software anyway, why not develope it in a way that produces lasting value for society as a whole?