At a time when The EU is seeking to cut FOSS funding to funds like @NGIZero
-
like jam or bootlacesreplied to Evilham :antifa: last edited by
I hate that things work this way, but a big epiphany I had when dealing even a little bit with budgetary bureaucracy is that you absolutely can scupper efforts by asking for too little.
-
FediThing 🏳️🌈replied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
Just to be clear, the European Commission is appointed by the elected governments of member states. (I know this is what you said too, but some people read "not directly elected" as meaning something more dictatorial.)
The ultimate problem seems to be governments and voters are subject to whims, they are easily swayed by the media and anyone controlling or influencing the media.
There are very few politicians or voters who understand the importance of FOSS and its significance for sustainable infrastructure. They might care about the long term consequences though, if these could be made clearer?
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@onepict See, prior to NGI, my guess is that a lot of people just didn't think they deserved better; what we had was all that there would ever be.
Enter NGI. Everyone thinks it's so amazing, all that money coming in, a lot of cool shit gets made.
Then NGI goes away, but it's too late: we know what we're missing. We're losing something, instead of never having it.
I'm basically hoping NGI isn't restored, for this reason. It will force us to help ourselves, and we'll probably be better for it.
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to FediThing 🏳️🌈 last edited by
@FediThing @libreleah This is where we need some of our next generation of younger folks to start considering politics. Not just elected folks, but their staff .
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@libreleah perhaps, although the amount of folks who've idolised Bill Gates and Elon Musk and think the way to get investment is to attract their attention isn't zero.
We do deserve better and it's why I've often thought that universal basic income, education, transport and healthcare would be better for Foss sustainability.
Although the way libreboot is funded is awesome. Both for funding the development and reusing equipment.
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@onepict Libreboot's funding model is uncommon in FOSS; I run my own business selling it on hardware, at a relatively high profit margin, on limited hours (I don't work full-time but I make fulltime wage).
When I need more money, I just drop my prices a bit and go on a marketing blitz or idk do a Libreboot release to shore up the numbers.
I'm also the BDFL of the Libreboot project; 100% of the spending of it comes from my own pocket, and I do a lot of work myself.
It's a small project though.
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@libreleah I was looking on your website recently, I was glad to see you've worked out the kinks shipping to Europe with the customs.
I really do like the range of lenovos you get and refurbish.
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@onepict I wouldn't say that this is possible with a lot of projects though. A lot of free software projects do not have an intrinsic financial value, and can't be monetized, but are still essential.
For example, libpng is used everywhere but do you see libpng being shrink-wrapped and sold to paying customers, and do you see libpng adverts on Google ads? No, and you don't see reviews of it.
It's like that Guy from Nebraska meme: https://xkcd.com/2347/
NGI is for Nebraska guy, not Libreboot.
-
Aral Balkanreplied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@onepict @NGIZero Literally what I told them to their faces at the parliament (for all the good it did):
The Future of Internet Regulation at the European Parliament
A brief write-up of my talk at the EU Parliament last week with embedded videos of my talk and a link to my slides.
Aral Balkan (ar.al)
So, yes, this,
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@libreleah it's where we all as small projects need to be talking about this.
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Aral Balkan last edited by
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@onepict I would agree with you that a negative income tax, also known as universal basic income, would be an effective means of funding free software. It would facilitate all kinds of creativity by allowing otherwise intelligent and passionate people to fully use their skill to work on many new projects of social and scientific benefit.
The economics are solid; if more people can start businesses, GDP goes up and the size of the state as a percentage will decrease over time (i.e. lower taxes).
-
Preston Maness ☭replied to Aral Balkan last edited by
@aral @onepict @NGIZero >Furthermore, funding for a stayup must come with a strict specification of the character of the technology it will build. Goods built using public funds must be public goods. Free Software Foundation Europe is currently raising awareness along these lines with their “public money, public code” campaign. However we must go beyond “open source” to stipulate that technology created by stayups must be not only public but also impossible to enclose. For software and hardware, this means using licenses that are copyleft. A copyleft license ensures that if you build on public technology, you must share alike. Share-alike licenses are essential so that our efforts do not become a euphemism for privatisation and to avoid a tragedy of the commons. Corporations with deep pockets must not be able to take what we create with public funds, invest their own millions on top, and not share back the value they’ve added.
️All of this. I really wish the FSF stateside would adopt a similar campaign to its European sister organization.
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@onepict 40 million adults of working age in UK * £18,000 per year (elderly already get state pension):
£720 billion
Taper it, like how universal credit (welfare system in the UK) already works; as people start earning more, their UBI reduces.
Given current median wages, and expected wage growth, you could probably knock the UBI bill to ~150 billion.
Universal credit already exists; make it opt-out instead of opt-in. Auto-enroll everyone. The infrastructure for UBI already exists, in the UK.
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@onepict 150billion if wages go up a lot. Otherwise I'd say UBI would probably cost about 200-250 billion annually at first, in the UK.
For reference, current government income is about £1 trillion. Some taxes would go up at first, but we can expect more people would start businesses if they have more time / less stress due to the support. So GDP goes up.
The rest of the money can be found be increasing productivity in the public sector, especially healthcare.
UBI is quite feasible in the UK.
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@onepict I mention healthcare because it's a huge percentage of government spending, in fact it's even been on the news recently. With UBI, more people would live at a higher standard, especially in terms of diet and exercise, which would result in fewer illnesses in the first place.
You could probably implement UBI without even increasing taxes at all, if I'm being honest, but any such rises would be temporary; a lot of people already get certain benefits anyway (in-work e.g. child tax credit)
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@onepict It would probably increase productivity in most workforces too, especially ones with lots of people on low wage. if you're no longer stressed about money, you can focus on your job better, whatever job that is.
so like, i think 200billion per year is a reasonable figure as to how much UBI would cost in practise, but even then you would probably phase it in; some people get it first and gradually everyone does.
the cost quickly becomes structural in nature. just more efficient welfare.
-
Leah Rowe is not a Rowebotreplied to Leah Rowe is not a Rowebot last edited by
@onepict So the question is either: How can we afford it, or how can we not afford it?
Scrimp on a few other budgets and reduce waste in a lot of other areas to all but cover the cost. Don't forget many people already get welfare hence 780 billion becoming more like 150 billion.
The cost of administration in welfare would also reduce quite dramatically, if it's automatic; no more DWP assessments. Most people are on PAYE too so the government knows how much money you make. UBI can be automated.
-
Terence Edenreplied to Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: last edited by
@onepict @libreleah
I'm on the board of OpenUK. Always happy to take feedback about what we could be doing more of. -
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Terence Eden last edited by [email protected]
@Edent @libreleah Well I'm in the EU now.
But I'm sure there are many UK FOSS folks who have some ideas.
I think if @openuk can influence UK Policy more so that there could be a UK equivalent to the Sovereign Tech Fund, that would be a huge boost for FOSS in the UK, and home grown innovation.