> We don't expect any company which raises VC money to give 100% ownership of their code to the VCs.

If they sell 100% of their shares to the VCs, the VCs have 100% ownership of the code, because they own the company.

But we do expect any company which raises VC money to pay out to the VCs according to their shares when a buyout happens. That's because VCs don't buy code, they buy a risky promise of future wealth.

By contrast, public funding for code is buying code (at least in theory).

Actually no, they don't buy code. They buy the people to implement a system at scale, and keep that system running and users trained. The code is negligible.

Take Windows desktop. It's designed to run at scale, out the box, when you have 10 000 employees, and any hardware, printers, whatever. A govt isn't buying Windows its buying active directory, and the fact that every new hire knows how to use it already. And a million other things windows does at scale (technically and humanally).

>> By contrast, public funding for code is buying code (at least in theory).

Funding developers is a risk as to weather the results will be what you hope. Paying for software is actually paying rent on something already complete. A typical software company uses the rent they collect on prior work to fund the newer risky work. The big companies are mostly doing the rent thing to pay shareholders.