The amount of work is kind of moot. If it's tax dollars funding its development don't you think it should all be open sourced?

The work to open source something is often extra work. So it would effectively increase the cost or, keeping costs fixed, reduce the impact of the software on it initial target...those who it was developed for.

I also imagine that in many cases the effort to open source some project would be much greater than the pay off. There are many custom software solutions developed that are of almost no value outside of the small domain specific target audience.

What do you think takes the most effort to make these projects open source? If this were the policy for all new projects, why would that be difficult?

There is a lot of internal resistance to open sourcing code. Lots of people believe that their code is their secret sauce - and why would you have highly paid consultants create code just so the next department can take it?

There's also security concerns to take into account - which I know someone will say is a good thing, because of transparency and so forth. But just realize that it's not a trivial amount of work to clean up a code-base and display it to the public all of the time.

And if the policy were open-source by default, the unspoken policy for project managers would be "automatically submitting a request to be closed source"

It's not perfect, but I know that 20% is a lot, and I think anyone who's worked in the sector would agree.

Those reasons, which surely place some non-negligible burden on the teams involved, do not seem to be so overwhelming as to ultimately dictate that 80% of projects are not made open source.

I'm definitely aware of the difficulties involved in open sourcing significant amounts of your work. The bigger burden is less, in my opinion, about cleaning up your code base. If you're committing potential security vulnerabilities into your code that are then tracked by your version control system – and you're a Federal agency – that's already a problem that's just going to be exacerbated by making it public; making that code private doesn't make the problem disappear.

The real meaty problems that all open source projects share is people: people like me who come in and overwhelm the project with support requests. I just opened four issues tonight just for this website, in the span of several minutes. (Sorry team!) If you already have poor project management practices in place, or your team is too small, this can quickly overload you.

Of course, with a vibrant community around your project, even the social and management problems could become trivial with time. Look at especially great examples like Hoodie. Given the number of technical people who have left cushy, high-paying jobs to serve in 18F, USDS, and the other alphabet agencies of late, I have to imagine the rallying cry to support truly useful code by compassionate people will be significant enough to justify the upfront expense here.

Not only is 20% not perfect, I don't think it's enough. I want 100%, and I think it's a fair request as a taxpayer, even if there is some burden. This country has fought two world wars and gone to the moon. We can always do better.

> But just realize that it's not a trivial amount of work to clean up a code-base and display it to the public all of the time.

Are you saying the federal government is running insecure code in production? I'm shocked. /s

But isn't everything made by the government in the public domain?

Assuming that's true, private companies contracted by the government may not be under that same requirement (think military specs and designs). The output as a whole may be public domain (I know what an F22 is, and the parts to build one, but the specs to those parts are proprietary) but the operations, and binaries,(specs and requirements to build the individual pieces) to produce that output may remain private.

Public domain just means it can't be copyrighted. It doesn't necessarily mean it has to be distributed to the public.

you mean like NSA toolkits?

I'm sure contractors and government employees also don't want people with this level of vitriol looking over their code and sniping them from afar. :)

I doubt I'd ever look at the code, I'm addressing the idea that we shouldn't open source things be default because someone will get upset about it.

New projects with new companies is easy. The problem is open source isn't a requirement for old projects, retroactively adding it is hard.

The companies hired would need to be new companies to contacting, with higher costs. Don't forget, government contracts are a lowest bidder war. Going full open source immediately might expose code that built using proprietary technology from a different division of a company. Therefore open source from scratch will have a high startup cost.

The existing projects can be small, open source, but more importantly these projects begin to build a foundation others can build on. The library of code created to support the framework of these projects will eventually be used as the basis for larger projects.

Wrapping back to the 80% this allows the existing, proprietary code reuse. While new, it's useless without its is proprietary components. This code, if released with proprietary components (and that's a big if since the binary would then be openly distributed) may not qualify as open source. One step further, public free binaries can be reverse engineered (the legality of which isn't something I'm well versed in). Which may not be in a companies current best long-term interest.

Tldr; The largest effort to being 100% open source is the library of code built on must also be open source or commonly distributed. Starting at 0 the current goal is 20%.

Provide costs don't rise too much expect 30% within 2 to 3 years (I'm being optimistic) or the next major government project timeline.

I can only imagine the nightmare attempting to explain to non-tech folks why it's good to give away the code they are writing.

We give away the laws we write. In fact, the government provides an awful lot of services. If the taxpayer paid for it, the taxpayer should certainly be able to own it. I've never personally found it difficult to explain that to non-technical people.

I think even a 5 year old can understand "if I paid for something, it's mine".

That's why I own a SR-71 Blackbird and my own naval destroyer... come on guys, grow up.