Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

After reading the comments on this page, I am a little disheartened that apparently most people want to give what is basically a work grant to a dead guy. Regardless of what you think of someone like Aaron Swartz, there are plenty of people who are currently doing good work who could greatly benefit from something like this. Giving it to a dead person simply to make a political statement diminishes any impact this award could have.

View on HN

> Giving it to a dead person simply to make a political statement diminishes any impact this award could have.

Giving it to Aaron Swartz would provide both the title and the money to advance the cause of Aaron's Law or similar reform of the CFAA, enacting which would do more for socially positive disobedience than the equivalent amount of money.

As you likely know, but some may not, grants have legally enforceable constraints on how the funds will be spent, and often require proof that the funds were spent as required; not spending the funds as required might result in civil and criminal legal complaints being filed.

The funds presented to the winner of the award are not a work grant. There are no strings attached as far as I am able to tell by the rules or hidden agendas via the applications; for example, "If you are the winner, how might the $250k prize make a difference?"

Basically, to have expectations of how the winner might spend the funds is what it is, but to state it's basically a work grant is inaccurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com