Gregory's Server
I agree this would be a great benefit; however, in practice what is happening is governments instead funding those who deploy the ("free as in exploitation") software. Solution is not effective until the resources pass through the entire supply chain.
|
5 comments
 @lightweight One difficulty with that is that public funding of industry is already common practice, so excluding tech from that is going to need more than a strong case. @downey @onepict @josh @lightweight @lightweight Sure, but then you're facing an even bigger fight. I think it's probably best to find a way to make FLOSS fundable, but not its exploitation - that's business as usual.  @jens ultimately, this comes down to fundamental principles of democracy, which are being flouted in most of the world's so-called democracies. It seems to me that the "greater good" and "core digital infrastructure" are the "right" direction to head, but yes, it won't be easy. I think anything that depends on businesses or philanthropy is doomed before it begins. @downey @onepict @josh |
@downey a strong case could, I think, be made that publicly funding proprietary software (i.e. implicit monopolies) is contrary to the greater good, and public funds should not be allocated to it. At all. We just need leaders who understand the exploitative nature of Big Tech (see https://davelane.nz/proprietary), are smart enough to realise that TrickleDown Economics isn't a thing, *and* who aren't corrupt af. Sadly, seems unlikely those stars'll align any time soon. @onepict @jens @josh