🧵 (1/4)
I just had a discussion with my boss (in a state-funded #academic #hospital department) about the fact that some of the #software developed here, is being sold, mostly to academic institutions.
His only argument: we need to pay our people so we can continue doing what we do. He said this, even though admitting that this software is not even paying its own development. Indeed, the costs involved in the overhead of making the software sellable may not even be covered.
[#]FOSS
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Depemig@scicomm.xyz
🧵 (2/4)
I of course replied that:
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Depemig@scicomm.xyz
🧵 (3/4)
The previous two points should be a reason for the grant provider to be more likely willing to pay more if you explicitl make the software #FOSS.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Depemig@scicomm.xyz
🧵 (4/4)
Which of these arguments, in your experience, is the most powerfull to start (and end?) a discussion with? Do you know better arguments I could have given? Does anyone know a good site where this point is made more eloquently than I did?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Depemig@scicomm.xyz
@Depemig This is a good question, one I struggle with too.
Cc: @fsfe @dario #PMPC #PublicCode #PublicMoneyPublicCode
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tommi@pan.rent This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini