[dTal]

Hear, hear. I've talked about this with people and it's surprisingly hard to convince them that government-sponsored software is a good idea. While a tiny fraction of the amount we already spend on commercial software would utterly transform the free software landscape, it's not politically viable as long as commercial software vendors have lobby power.

[wtbob]

> it's surprisingly hard to convince them that government-sponsored software is a good idea

That's because it's not. Governments are not reliably good, and their money comes with far more strings than private money.

The FSF have it right: people should write free software because proprietary software is immoral.

[simoncion]

> [Government] money comes with far more strings than private money.

Have you ever worked on a government-funded project? The Tor folks have and do. :)

> ...[P]eople should write free software because proprietary software is immoral.

USGov does fund Libre and Open Source software. One big example is the Tor Project.

[microtonal]

Let's not forget that it is not in many governments' interest to have distributed tools (with strong encryption). It is much easier to take down stuff on centralized services.

BTW, it is hear, hear ;).

[chopman]

But of your government is at odds with an oppressive government, it would make sense for it to fund that kind of software so the people could take it down, or at least make trouble, themselves.

[dTal]

Thank you for the correction :)