Should Government Provide Funding for Open Source Software?
Open source software basically means the code used to create the software is freely available for anyone to download, modify, and redistribute.
Yes
Side Score: 11
|
 |
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
I have worked on open source software in the past and consider it to be by far the best development method. The most important factor is that you can freely exchange ideas with anyone without worrying about them "stealing" your code. This can result in far better software being created. To quote the Open Source Initiative: "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in." The catch when it comes to open source is that because the code is free to redistribute, there's really no practical way to make money at it. This keeps most people from being able to work on it full time. I propose that the government should create some kind of taxpayer funded program to give grants to programmers to work on various open source software projects. The benefits to society would far outweigh the costs of funding this organization. Side: yes
2
points
This is consistent with the idea that the government works for the people. The government spends a large amount of money toward software purchases, which serves some short-term goals, but don't improve the public good substantially. If instead the government had a strict policy that any and all software purchased or funded with public money must be open-sourced under a license recognized by the OSF for example, then every tax dollar spent on software would in fact have a much greater chance to improve the overall software landscape. (And yes, some of that software would have to stay unpublished for reasons of national security, but that should be a small minority of all software purchases.) To the counter-argument that open-source is a threat to the software industry, I say "Baloney!": The software industry does not strive on re-writing the exact same functionality over and over, nor does it strive by reselling the same old code ad infinitum. That is stagnation and artificially inflated profits. On the contrary, but having more and more open-source building blocks available to all, the software industry becomes both challenged and enabled to reach higher and to produce items that were unattainable before. Side: yes
|
2
points
The main reason behind saying no is the simple fact that if the government gives money to Open source then they will have rights to regulate it. As with all government money, they always expect some sort of utility in return. While open source would be great for the masses, it would mean less big companies bringing in profits and profits equal tax dollars. Side: No
Of course the government would regulate the projects it funds, as it should. Obviously we should expect utility in return. If there's no utitlity than why in the world would we be funding these projects? Open source software would allow companies and individuals to become much more efficient. This would be a boost to the economy. What is money really? It's a measure of value. Alone, a dollar bill is just a sheet of cotton -- it gets it's power by representing a share of the available resources. Open source software creates much value, which is really what is fundamental to the economy. If we made a better version of Windows that was open source, Microsoft would indeed be making less money, but there would be no loss of utility for society as a whole, indeed it would be a net gain. And if the government does in fact lose money by not receiving income tax from Microsoft, than where is that money? It's in the hands of consumers. So the government could simply raise taxes on the consumers to recoup an equivalent amount if that turned out to be necessary. Side: yes
1
point
Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. In the case of Windows and Microsoft, i think you're thinking too small; consumers love free items especially items that are very user friendly, which is almost all open source I've ever experienced. This would completely wipe out Microsoft. The whole idea of open source is anti capitalism which goes against our current economy. If we began to support such measures then we would have to change our economy. Which I don't foresee the government doing anytime soon. Simply raise taxes? Not that simple, especially when you consider that this is supposed to be open source and that means that it is open in all regards. Once you allow the government to steer, you take away the vital element that keeps it afloat, no regulation. Side: No
|
