I can already picture it
"you don't want to open a government backdoor? No more tax money for you"
"your foss project needs to be verified by the government to be selectable for founding, you don't want to? Well, no tax money for you"
"For your foss project to be created we need to verify it now that by law all foss projects receive tax money, you don't want? Delete everything"
And this is how you will own nothing and will be "happy". You can't escape the surveillance by using foss, go live in the woods before it's to late, and don't forget to carry your tin foil hat, be safe.
"you want a government backdoor on GPL licensed code? publish the backdoor for everyone to use, see and exploit/check for themselves. And/or watch as people simply take a version of the software built from a more reputable source without that backdoor instead. Thanks for the money!"
"you want to force all foss projects existing in the global internet across countries to get paid by you or close? enjoy your logistic nightmare as you pay to be made fun of by all other countries while I fork projects with one click"
Backdoor? Even if it isn't blatantly obvious - some autistic kid will notice a program runs 0.05 seconds slower and will work it out.
At the very least if you're going to be backdooring your code you might as well add "back door goes here" to your PR so we can easily cut it out when the hard fork happens without the backdoor included.
Why the fuck does everyone keep referring to Andres Freund, the skilled Microsoft engineer who discovered this as an "autistic kid"? Can everyone doing that please fuck off?
Even if he is autistic, which I am not finding anything suggesting he is, this shouldn't be a part of the conversation. He protected the Linux community from a major exploit, just give him the credit for a job well done.
Sorry you're right. I'm actually not across the matter enough to comment and have only heard the "autistic kid" part through like third hand knowledge.
Although everyone is on the spectrum somewhere, especially in the IT space.
But you're right, the take away from this is I should learn about the topic better.
I applaud your skepticism, though I do feel that having the source open does help make that harder.
Every time I see tinfoil references I often wonder if people realize the relation to tinfoil and blocking radiation or alpha particles, as they come in different sizes.
Hell people wear leaded vests at the dentist to block radiation from oral xrays.
Should we* start another silly club, Lead+Tinfoil? We all talk shit on the web but it seems like the majority is always the dumb masses getting scammed and duped and the weird guy in the corner gets ahead.
Big tech is already getting free code. This would simply fund the devs for the critical infrastructure. also if we force tax payer code to be GPL code it would force big tech code to also be GPLed. Which would significantly improve the current scenario.
I work for a US state agency that funds FOSS projects, and all projects that I write in-house or fund in the future will be GPL.
Not on the stuff I write in-house. I haven't had any new external projects funded since I started here. I have asked for some current projects that are MIT to switch to GPL, but that's a can of worms, and none have pulled the trigger yet.
Gotcha, that's unfortunate. Fingers crossed, soon, and you'll be able to GPL that shit from the start! I hope you are successful in converting some projects to GPL. I have heard of some people going the other way from GPL to BSD because of their idea of what “freedom” means.
If the public are paying for it, then it becomes a subsidy.
And good luck getting the US government to require the code to be GPLed. That’s even less likely to happen than a public subsidy for OSS at all.
They typically do the opposite and require “commercialization” to ensure the benefit of the publicly-funded technology is captured by their donors.
This is how it basically works in biotech, for example. Government grants to study the medicine and then when the scientists actually find something important it becomes a “public-private partnership” often without even a royalty for the public let alone making it a public good.
That’s not how government funding works in a modern democracy, unfortunately. It would amount to a cash transfer to big tech to make the public pay their R&D costs.
If the public are paying for it, then it becomes a subsidy.
I agree. And its a public good. It should be
And good luck getting the US government to require the code to be GPLed. That’s even less likely to happen than a public subsidy for OSS at all.
true but thats how it should be.
i agree. It's a problem but not doing anything just harms the FOSS ecosystem. We can help foster FOSS ecosystems while trying to cutrail big tech. Cause corporations gonna number line go up.
Imagine having NATO, one of the largest organisations in the world, leeching off your open source project, lol.
Imagine Apple making you agree to not use iTunes to make nuclear weapons... oh wait...
