1. 28
  1.  

  2. 4

    New Zealand’s NZGOAL Framework is a pretty good example of what this could look like.

    1. 3

      I would have signed this for Canada. Open source can benefit the world in many ways, including public sector. I often feel like closed source means security by obscurity. Maybe it can’t fit all projects, but I’d definitely like to see this happen at scale.

      There are already a load of awesome open source projects with non restrictive licenses that makes people life’s better. Software is for people.

      1. 1

        This project seems misguided for a couple of reasons.

        For starters, the public’s money is not used for the public’s benefit, but the politicians’ and their cronies’.

        The BigCorps that produce government software want to have all of their projects last as long as possible, because they want to keep charging their outrageous fees for as long as possible. That’s the point of being a crony contractor.

        If the government started producing genuinely reusable libraries and components, that would reduce the amount of time required to finish projects, which would make the cronies unhappy.

        And if the cronies can’t get a satisfying return on investment for their bribes, they’ll bribe politicians less, and that would make politicians unhappy.

        Clearly, the quality of government software is not going to improve any time soon, because quality is simply not a concern.

        And even if most public software was actually released as open source, it would be 90%+ badly written crap that no one will actually use for anything.

        1. 10

          This petition was set up by the FSFE. Their reason d’être is this kind of policy work. You can argue all day how there are always larger problems left to tackle, the FSFE will do the work they do regardless of those other problems.

          Have you heard that many years from now, the sun will explode? You know, I still signed this petition anyway!

          1. 0

            So are you telling me that wasting time and effort on trying to achieve something that’s impossible is a good thing?

            1. 8

              It’s better than not even trying.

              1. 0

                I kind of hope you’re trolling, for your sake.

                But if you see someone trying to fly by flapping his arms really fast, will you encourage him to keep trying, because it’s “better than not even trying”?

              2. 1

                So, I’m quite curious because I think you & I have started from almost the same idea and ended up at opposite conclusions.

                I’d agree with you that the defining feature of government is the threat of force to take from the populace (some governments do other stuff to, but that’s the difference between ‘government’ and ‘not a government’).

                In my travels, I’ve noticed that there’s a lot of variation between different governments; some impoverish their people terribly, whilst others give back much of their tax revenue in public works.

                I had assumed that the difference there was that in some jurisdictions, people have collectively demanded concessions, and some of those concessions had been granted.

                It sounds like you don’t think it’s possible to achieve that, which makes me curious what your explanation is for the differences between governments.

                1. 1

                  You’re almost guaranteed to be trying to troll me, but I’m tempted to respond. Good job!

                  1. 1

                    Depends what you mean by troll. I’m very likely to ask (many) follow up questions when I don’t follow your logic, and I’ll hassle you quite a bit if I think you’re being mendacious, but you’ve stated a pretty straightforward argument so far.