Open Source Bill For Australian Capital Territory 186
leinad writes "An article in The Age newspaper claims the Australian Capital Territory is set to become the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt a bill which says that public bodies should, as far as practicable, consider the use of open source software when procuring computer software. (The Australian Capital Territory is the small territory/state of Australia in which Canberra, the capital of Australia, is located.)" Seems like requiring blueprints from contractors, to me.
wel... (Score:1, Insightful)
what's most interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill, which goes before the ACT Legislative Assembly tonight, also specifies that public bodies should not use software that does not comply with open standards or standards recognised by the ISO or software for which support or maintenance is provided only by an entity that has the right to exercise exclusive control over its sale or distribution.
That'll be the bit that gives most trouble to the beast of Redmond...
Define support (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure you'll find that Redmond will have no trouble satisfying this clause.
Requiring Open Source is not a solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Promoting open standards is another matter though, cause that really gives people the power to use whatever they want, be it open source or Microsoft software, it doesn't matter.
Re:Requiring Open Source is not a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the most significant part of the bill is not really about open source...it's about requiring the use of open standards, and avoiding single vendor lock in....
Re:Define support (Score:2, Insightful)
The open source movement needs to market itself better to the enterprise. That's why I support that proposal by the Debian guy to get certification & target vertical markets with tailored distros. If someone did that for the British NHS & sold them 1.6m seats @ (say) UKP20 + annual support @ UKP20/seat/year there'd be a reasonable amount of cash (64 Million Pounds) going into the system to enhance the distro
Re:Requiring Open Source is not a solution (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Someone has to say it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Someone has to say it (Score:2, Insightful)
There was a great article in Australian Developer a few months ago explaining the economics of open source for (non US) governments and the way that supporting FOSS keeps more money in your country and improves your balance of trade.
This is not the case in America for obvious reasons
Re:You haven't understood (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Requiring Open Source is not a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
It *is* the business of governments to regulate how government sector organisations purchase software. They aren't trying to tell *you* what to buy
I see this as affirmative action against all those government agencies that automatically think that expensive, multi-national-owned software is intrinsically better than open source, or locally produced stuff from small vendors.
There are plenty of government managers who get their kudos from spending lots of tax-payers' dollars on big-budget projects, when something much more modest would do the job
Re:Someone has to say it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Software matters, OS does not (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a troll and probably an M$ astroturfer but I'll bite so those new here won't be fooled:
The source of the OS matters just as much as for application, but for reasons you haven't mentioned. These include:
Documentation - it is impossible for API documentation to be complete. Source is frequently needed to make clear what will happen under rare circumstances eg. virtual memory traps during a strcpy() in a device driver.
Back doors - without source it is impossible for the government to make sure that public data is not being used for private purposes. "Trust me" is not good enough for any non-trivial project. eg. voting
Unusual circumstances - Governments are large organisations with many specialised operations. To say one size fits all is simply wrong. Source is not a panacea but can help solve problems that closed source vendors won't even look at. eg. support for military spec hardware.
Forking - Closed source software forks every bit as much as open source source software and in addition will always eventually no longer be supported. With open source software an customer can make their own choices about when to drop support and not be beholden to a vendor trying to maximise profit.
---
I sometimes think that closed source vendors are engaged in 1984 style double-think when it comes to closed source API's. By definition an open source API, assuming all else is equal, will allow a customer at least all the options of a closed source API.
---
Astroturfers are scum
Re:Software matters, OS does not (Score:4, Insightful)
That's silly. It's like saying that having the freedom to remodel your building means that you're going to undermine its foundations and break its compliance with the building code. Of course you don't do that.
When you have a large site with higher potential migration costs, you would be fiscally irresponsible to hand your system over to a single-source vendor. You wouldn't sign a building contract which specified that only the original builder could fix the roof if it leaked, would you? He could charge any price he wanted -- your only options would be to pay it, or to live in a leaky building, or to demolish or abandon the building and build another. That is what lock-in and migration costs mean in proprietary software.
It's true that you, or your staff, may never need to make changes to your software yourself. However, you still benefit from the fact that others can, and that you are not locked-in to someone else's way of doing business.
Re:In case that doesn't make sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
change for the better (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, I am not an artist, and when I want to touch up a image on my computer, I use the GIMP. My brother is an artist and when he manipulates an image, he uses Photoshop. I chose the GIMP because of its price (directly related to its openness), but if my brother were forced to use the GIMP, he would hate it. It is a good tool, but not the best. And those that care about the difference don't want the choice determined by openness.
On the other hand, forcing all to be considered, including open source, is a win for everyone. Users get the best tool, good open source projects get to play on even ground, and losing open source projects know exactly what to improve on.
Re:Requiring Open Source is not a solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe it doesn't make sense to you. But it doesn't sound like you know what it means to manage a fleet of corporate vehicles, or a computing infrastrucure for that matter.
Even in my personal life, I don't want a car with the hood welded shut, I want one that can be repaired by the local garage, or by me. Same with electronics. I like it a lot when I can talk intelligently with the repair shop, because we're both reasonably knowledgeable about the equipment under repair.
The thing about physical systems is that we take for granted the fact that they are open. Take the valve covers off your motorcycle some time if you don't believe me. You don't see a bunch of meaningless zeroes and ones, do you?
Since zeroes and ones don't have intrinsic meaning the way valves and cams do in a physical system, we need the source code, that is, the blueprints.
Okay? Everybody understand that now? Cool.
Re:Software matters, OS does not (Score:2, Insightful)
wtf? requiring plans for a building is considered necessary (usually on a local level) because the designs need to be reviewed for competency, accordance to various codes, and to make sure the builder isn't cheating to cut costs, etc.; all of which are in the public good. if you really wanted to draw a good comparison, you could say any software used in at least the goverment (or the public sector as a whole) should be required to adhere to a strict set of safety, security, and other guidelines before being allowed use...in other words a set of rules much like the building code.
Re:Software matters, OS does not (Score:2, Insightful)
Open source encourages standards- because people like interoperability. People like being able to upgrade freely - not have to upgrade one expensive license only to find out they have to upgrade all their other sofwtare to work with it(2k to Xp for instance).
Software is always in a state of flux. That is what things like Portage/Gentoo [gentoo.org], Debian/Apt [debian.org] and Redhat RPM [redhat.org] are all about.
The definition of what is OS and what is apps is becoming increasingly blurred. Is KDE an App? Part of the OS? Somewhere in between? The same could be said for many MS services. Although the GUI has now been integrated furthar down(instead of Win on top of dos), would you say Explorer (as in your desktop) is part of the OS? Or just a nifty utility shipped with it?
I think having all the source code is a good idea, both for upgradeability, transparency, security/trust and maintainability.