Should Public Funds Mean Public Code?

Lisa points to this article on oreillynet with "two opposing viewpoints on whether all software created by publicly funded research should be licensed as open source, and the chance to weigh in yourself." Open-source software (under whatever license) seems to me like a good way to multiply the investment of tax dollars that public funding relies on, but the counterarguments offered here are interesting.

Comments

Re:I paid for it, I want it!

[RareHeintz]

First off, fuck you for your condescending tone.

Secondly, how's this for a rational argument against it:

If I pay for code to be developed, but someone else gets to charge licensing fees for it, with no benefit accruing to me (or the others who have paid for the project), then I have been stolen from. (The exception would be if I had paid as a charitable donation. My taxes are not charitable donations, in case you need that explained.)

So, I suppose I'd be satisfied if I could be assured that no privately held patents or copyrights could be generated by publicly-funded research - I don't pay taxes to subsidize the fortune someone else makes on licensing fees. A better, further step would be to publish the source, even if it's under a restriction disallowing the use of those portions of the code developed privately, for the purpose of providing transparency to the process, so that I (and other taxpayers) can know we're not being stolen from, even if it has to come to getting some company's source under subpoena for a comparison.

I'd still favor an all-Open-Source policy that goes beyond either of the above steps. Everything the government does should (beyond reasonable concession for security) be transparent and should benefit the people first, business interests a distant second.

Satisfied, asshole?

OK,
- B

Re:B-2 Bombers are made with public funds

[geekoid]

ther is actually a very good answer to those points, to bad your an AC