I hope at some point in this conf we can also discuss the question - how to incentivise devs to share their code publicly always and by default (regardless if it's "perfect" or spaghetti - it's a spectrum anyway, right?). Basically if a project gets public funding and uses funding to write code, even if just in pilot / Proof-of-Concept stage, code should be online from day 1. But as most tricky questions, I guess the problem is social not technical, right? #CoRDI2023
@lozross This is a great idea, but the implementation would be complex. It would require a code forge (Github Premium? Github Academia?) that only provides short descriptions of the code base and doesn't allow cloning for less than $50-$80. And only provides FLOSS licensed code if the developer pays over $500 in "Open Access Fees".
Oh, and if some clever developer cracks the system and provides free and open access to the code, the forge has to go after them and harass them legally until driving them to suicide, the way academics did with Aaron Schwarz.
I.e., it would need to be something that puts open source code distribution on equal standing to academic publishing.
And something tells me that maybe information technology workers might not see this as a good deal.
@acousticmirror I am not really sure what you mean actually. All I was saying is (very basic concept) people should use public Git repos for their code. We have Gitlab at the Open Science Lab and for open license repos all the premium features are free, I think GitHub have similar deals for edu / non profits. And the premium features aren't even that important, they are just nicer project management tools. My point is precisely that we can't (and don't have to) directly compare code to text publishing. I think the latter has too many legacy/ historic complications.
Add comment