Recent searches
Search options
Dear @EU_Commission, I said this at the European Parliament but let me repeat it:
Public funding for tech should come with a stipulation that the organisations that take (our) public funds should not then be able to take venture capital (VC) and have private capital enclose what is built with that public funding.
Context: Delta Chat (@delta), which has received public funding from multiple #EU funds, #NLNet, etc. is reportedly now considering a VC offer.
@aral
Can using a "strong" license such as #AfferoGPL be a feasible answer to this issue?
@EU_Commission @delta
@paoloredaelli @EU_Commission @delta It can be part of the solution. The main one would be a clause in the contract that says the equivalent of “by receiving this funding you agree to not take private equity for this product”.
As I said at the EU Parliament, “why are we acting like an unpaid research and development department for Silicon Valley?” Replace “Silicon Valley” with private equity or venture capital if you want a more universal quote. The point holds.
Public funds? Public tools.
@aral
I'm not a lawyer but as far as I know it's one of the results of using the Affero General Public License. @carlopiana or other people from @fsfe surely know something more than me
@EU_Commission @delta
@paoloredaelli @aral @fsfe @EU_Commission @delta I agree that using a strong copyleft public license can only go that far, a license is only part of the problem. Public money should be only used in an efficient way. I'm not against favoring private business out of this, provided that there is a fair and equal competition. The key is this: efficiency and competition.