NASA

1007 readers

10 users here now

Anything related to the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); the latest news, events, current and future missions, and more.

Note: This community is an unofficial forum and is unaffiliated with NASA or the U.S. government.

Rules

Be respectful and inclusive.
No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
Engage in constructive discussions.
Share relevant content.
Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Use appropriate language and tone.
Report violations.
Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

antangil

L7ePvmEn

Data rights limitations affecting NASA technology development (spacenews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/nasa

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

*Data rights limitations affecting ~~NASA~~ technology development

Privatized knowledge is bottlenecking all technology.

The internet runs on open source software and it's what powers modern world wide communications.

If we opened up more technology and technological knowledge this way .... we're be sending our first mission and human crew to Jupiter by now.

Instead we take up all our human knowledge, experience and ability to prop up a bunch of billionaire bank accounts.

We hold back our collective progress just to allow a few of us the privilege of being able to say that they are temporary masters of our little human universe.

[–] partial_accumen 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Privatized knowledge is bottlenecking all technology.

Historically removal of all privatized knowledge removes the largest incentive to create new knowledge.

Nations with high intellectual property rights show the most advances. This is even with the benefit that low intellectual property respecting nations get immediately up-to-date knowledge when a high intellectual property nation releases it.

Some public and some private (for a time) knowledge has proven to yield the most technological advances. I'm a big believer in my tax money funding basic research (fundamental physics and biological research) while private industry selects from that to build on and develop new specific technologies which are private for a limited time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Historically removal of all privatized knowledge removes the largest incentive to create new knowledge.

That doesn't make sense .... the Open Source Software movement is basically what started the technological explosion in the 70s and 80s and it was basically the basis of which Microsoft and Apple got their start ... sure it was a tech people with day jobs and institutions with money that did it all but they did it mostly without an awareness of how to monetize it ... and that period was also the basis of where Linux came out of which went on to build systems that power our modern internet. The majority of all that work was built by individuals who's only incentive was to create new things and ideas .... often without thinking about profit or income. The idea of profit usually came after the technology was established and people could better understand how to monetize, privatize and regulate it all for themselves.

I get it ... we all need money to live ... and we need to be rewarded for our work ... but those needs shouldn't be taken to such extremes as to lock away knowledge and monetize everything while slowing down progress that others could potentially create if they had access.

[–] partial_accumen 2 points 1 year ago

That doesn’t make sense … the Open Source Software movement is basically what started the technological explosion in the 70s and 80s and it was basically the basis of which Microsoft and Apple got their start …

You have a chunk of the history very wrong. You have a couple pieces of history that are close, but in the wrong order, and with attributing the impact of those events wrong.

Examples:

Berkley Unix was originally and addon to the commercial software of Unix System V.
RMS didn't even create GNU until 1983 and that was barely the idea ad the time.
The very first version of Linux wasn't a thing until 1991, and it was NOT the useful OS you think of today.
Slackware the first distro and was probably the beginning of what most people think of Linux and that was really only in 1993. It too was NOT what you think of Linux today.
Microsoft got started making systems to control automobile traffic lights on Altair computers. Nothing to do with OSS. In fact, Microsoft's BASIC they wrote for Altair was then pirated, and Bill Gates complained about that. Certainly not OSS. For the PC they licensed DOS from Xerox. Again, nothing to do with OSS.

You're cherry picking any OSS notable events without attribution to all of the private work and commercial software that enabled it to occur.

I get it … we all need money to live … and we need to be rewarded for our work … but those needs shouldn’t be taken to such extremes as to lock away knowledge and monetize shouldn’t be taken to such extremes as to lock away knowledge and monetize everything

How much software will you write for free? How are you going to feed yourself and your family if all of your efforts are just given away?

while slowing down progress that others could potentially create if they had access.

Again, without the IP protections there aren't the resources to write everything for free. Some? Certainly. There is some government and corporate support. I addressed that above. The big innovation is likely going to come from small or large groups doing the work to create the thing to personally benefit.

There are nations that do what you're suggesting historically. Look at cold war era Russia and China. Software written was mostly done by the state. There wasn't private enterprise doing it. What software innovations did you see coming out of those countries at the time?