[LINK] public funding - public profits?

[Tony Hill]

Hi Danny

I have seen a copy of the full report.  There has been growth in both
exports and imports of software licences since 1993-94.  According to
the report exports in this area have been growing faster than imports!
However there is still a deficit of $57 million in 2000-01.

You can obtain a brief or order a full copy of the report from
http://www.cfses.com/ict2001.htm

On the issue of whether government funded software should be open
source, ISOC-AU has just called for increased recognition of open source
as part of its Key Steps for high quality development of the Internet in
Australia, see:
http://www.isoc-au.org.au/Election2001/Election_points_2001.html

regards, Tony Hill

--
| Tony Hill ed@isoc-au.org.au               Executive Director |
| icq 103707971        Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU) |
| Tel +61 2 6257 5544                               PO Box 152 |
| Mobile 041 212 8755          Civic Square ACT 2608 Australia |
| Fax +61 2 6262 9938                       www.isoc-au.org.au |
|                The Internet is for Everyone!                 |

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-link@www.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-link@www.anu.edu.au]On
Behalf Of Danny Yee
Sent: Monday, 22 October 2001 1:25 PM
To: Tony Hill
Cc: Link List
Subject: [LINK] public funding - public profits?


> The ICT Trade Update 2001, released this week by the Australian
Computer
> Society (ACS), has revealed that Australia’s ICT trade deficit reached
> almost $16 billion in 2000-01,

I wonder what fraction of that is software licensing costs...

> Significantly increased funding for public sector research, especially
> in collaboration with industry;
> Skills, especially in the key areas of research and higher education;
> Personal incentives to attract and retain the best people in our
> industry;
> Improved financial incentives for private sector research and
> development; and

I think it's obvious that any software development the government
funds should be free software/open source: if it's funded by the
public, the output should be public.  Are there any real arguments
against this?  (Of course most biotech research, even when funded
through universities, seems to end up belonging to corporations rather
than the public.)

Danny.
  ----------------------------------------------------------
  http://dannyreviews.com/ - nearly six hundred book reviews
  http://www.caa.org.au/ -  working for an end to poverty
  http://danny.oz.au/  - free speech, free software, travel
  ----------------------------------------------------------