There are companies (including Siemens, for example) which build traffic lights and sell the control software and algorithms for eg car and pedestrian detection. See https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-types.htm
In a lot of places, the government decides that a service is required and companies bid for the construction rights. Just because public money was used to buy a service doesn't make the IP the property of the public.
And in response to a sibling comment, no, the government does not always pay for code development. The company decides they have some niche IP (eg car detection) and start selling speed cameras. They then bid for government contracts.
You could argue that there is an onus on government to use open hardware and software where possible. It often costs them less money, for a start. I suspect its easier to run an open source focused company and aim to be a major government contractor than it is to persuade the government to buy open source.
> Just because public money was used to buy a service doesn't make the IP the property of the public.
No, but it could. Might raise costs initially, but the idea is that enforcing such a spending policy would lower costs and reduce duplication long term. Not to mention that having law and beurocracy enforced by closed source systems is a major threat to freedom and democracy, of course.
No, because no company in their right mind will give up its IP like this. You will have to purchase the company, or minimally, purchase an exclusive license to that technology at 10x or even 20x the price.
There are companies (including Siemens, for example) which build traffic lights and sell the control software and algorithms for eg car and pedestrian detection. See https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-types.htm
In a lot of places, the government decides that a service is required and companies bid for the construction rights. Just because public money was used to buy a service doesn't make the IP the property of the public.
And in response to a sibling comment, no, the government does not always pay for code development. The company decides they have some niche IP (eg car detection) and start selling speed cameras. They then bid for government contracts.
You could argue that there is an onus on government to use open hardware and software where possible. It often costs them less money, for a start. I suspect its easier to run an open source focused company and aim to be a major government contractor than it is to persuade the government to buy open source.