Should our government be doing this?

[scholarpack]

Malta has announced its position with respect to Open Standards and Open Source Software (OSS) and the Malta Information Technology Agency (MITA) also presented an Open Source Vision white paper which has the aim of nurturing the proliferation of open source software.

 

MITA chairman Claudio Grech spoke about the reasons why the government complies with Open Standards and, if it’s the best solution, procure OSS.

 

“When we procure ICT solutions for the government, we do so with a strategic vision and with long-term planning so we go for the best value for money. It is crucial that where possible and where the business needs are similar, we are able to share and re-use these ICT solutions across the public sector,” said Mr Grech. As a major ICT buyer in the local market, the government cannot afford to have disjointed solutions which require major investment to ensure interoperability later on. “It is essential to reduce costs and risks, avoid paying twice and secure the highest returns on investment,” said Mr Grech.

 

Government of Malta publishes their Open Source Vision.

 

via: https://www.mita.gov.mt/page.aspx?pageid=191

 

As I recall, the Maltese education system is based heavy on the English one.

[danbuntu]

Hell yes.

[localzuk]

OSS is a key part of any future procurement policy, however it shouldn't be seen as 'cheap' just because it can be free.

 

As with any policy, the goals should be the starting point and then things should be looked at which fulfil those goals.

 

I do think our government should be involving OSS in their decisions more but it shouldn't be the only thing they look at. There are many things which should be involved in those processes.

[GREED]

It's funny but Open Source still have a bit of stigma attached to it, regardless of the company or software, is still seen by many as 'cheap freebie version'. Which is totally not the case.

[danbuntu]

It's funny but Open Source still have a bit of stigma attached to it, regardless of the company or software, is still seen by many as 'cheap freebie version'. Which is totally not the case.

 

The linux action show had a good take on this which is that opinion is beginning to change as the second and third generation of geeks are beginning to work their way up the corporate ladder - the kind of geeks that don't default to we have paid for it therefore it's better.

[GREED]

The linux action show had a good take on this which is that opinion is beginning to change as the second and third generation of geeks are beginning to work their way up the corporate ladder - the kind of geeks that don't default to we have paid for it therefore it's better.

 

Completly agree dan, although my experience might say this is down very simply in most (but not all) cases to the fact that people at that stage now learnt from messing around at home with no money to spend on software, so open source was the only way... I know because I was one of them!

[SYNACK]

OSS is a key part of any future procurement policy, however it shouldn't be seen as 'cheap' just because it can be free.

 

As with any policy, the goals should be the starting point and then things should be looked at which fulfil those goals.

 

I do think our government should be involving OSS in their decisions more but it shouldn't be the only thing they look at. There are many things which should be involved in those processes.

 

I agree, and OSS is not always the cheap option. Lots of paied for software it half a dozen clicks and your done as the implementation is handled nicely in software. This can be a very far cry from sifting through pages of config files.

 

Look at DansGuardian vs Smoothwall, both based on OOS but one you pay for. You pay for someone else to deal with the fiddly bits so you don't have to personally implement the entire solution yourself.

 

On the scale of a government it is totally feasible to employ the people to spend the time to implement it propperly and deploy it over hundreds of sites. In smaller implementations like businesses where they actually pay their technical support market value it is not economical to spend the time to implement a solution up to the same level as something like Smoothwall. It becomes much cheaper, safer and more sane to pay someone else to do that bit and just configure the site specific stuff rather than the whole deal.

 

Before anyone jumps up I'm not saying that all OSS software is like this but almost every time I have to install some server side OOS software I end up neck deep in a text file the length of the Art of War.

[GREED]

I think that is a good point, at what point to you want to pay to hand off the responsibility and technical skill to a company... this is where OSS often ends and corporate type software begins.

[danbuntu]

It becomes much cheaper, safer and more sane to pay someone else to do that bit and just configure the site specific stuff rather than the whole deal..

 

Valid points. However what if government takes my taxes and spends them working with and developing open source software. Then when I, as part of a smaller organisation, come to use that software it would have had the benefit of all that extra development and hopefully as a result be more stable and easier to set up.

 

Also there is nothing to stop you paying for someone to help setup open source software for you and nothing wrong with it either. The advantage of course is that when you have had time to use it and play with it you can go solo and run it by yourself - something you can't do with proprietary software.

[GREED]

The advantage of course is that when you have had time to use it and play with it you can go solo and run it by yourself - something you can't do with proprietary software.

 

I wouldn't say this is true in most cases except for a quickly identifiable few, picking up on my earlier reply, who do you go to when, relying on a heavily used and important system (MIS is a good example) whe something breaks, doesn't work right, needs upgrading, incompatible with another system? The bonus of Microsoft (sometimes) is that they do spend millions on development and interoperability, and love it or hate it, generally it works right.

[SYNACK]

Valid points. However what if government takes my taxes and spends them working with and developing open source software. Then when I, as part of a smaller organisation, come to use that software it would have had the benefit of all that extra development and hopefully as a result be more stable and easier to set up.

Both good and bad points there, if the governtment did contribute to OSS and make those changes/configurations avalible freely to its citizens then it could benifit people. On the flip side is it really the governments role to be a software development house, for certain things maybe but not all and what about the local companies that it is effectivly competeing against. Should the goventment really be spending taxes (paid by the citizens and companies in question) on competing with its own citizens and trying to put them out of business?

 

Also there is nothing to stop you paying for someone to help setup open source software for you and nothing wrong with it either. The advantage of course is that when you have had time to use it and play with it you can go solo and run it by yourself - something you can't do with proprietary software.

 

You are right that there is nothing wrong with hireing in extra consultants to help set up a system and maybe maintain it but this again adds to the cost removing one of the much loarded benifits of the solutions being cheaper. You are also perfectly able to run proprietary software yourself you just can't alter the core code. Depending on the supplier of the software you may however be able to request that they make required changes for you if there are any.

[torledo]

Should the goventment really be spending taxes (paid by the citizens and companies in question) on competing with its own citizens and trying to put them out of business?

 

 

You are right that there is nothing wrong with hireing in extra consultants to help set up a system and maybe maintain it but this again adds to the cost removing one of the much loarded benifits of the solutions being cheaper. You are also perfectly able to run proprietary software yourself you just can't alter the core code. Depending on the supplier of the software you may however be able to request that they make required changes for you if there are any.

 

government wouldn't be purposely trying to 'crowd out' it's citizens, it would simply be procuring/commissioning work that could be open source and reusable across other parts of the government. it's still buying in services.

 

now, you could argue that government could and should be using it's buying power to make best use of proprietary software it purchases, but then presumably such usage across govt. departments sees licensing costs and customization costs rise, with government being 'locked in' in continuing to pay annual support and endless customization ontop of initial licensing costs ?

[GrumbleDook]

One of the other problems is that should the UK Govt decide to work on open resources or OSS applications and then release them to be used elsewhere ... and that it is paid for by the tax payer ... surely certain companies might take the view that the Govt is trying to force them out of business?

 

Anyone remember Curriculum Online and BBC Jam?

 

There is also the stigma of it being a Govt project which turns people away from it. For some strange reason, there are chunks of the public that don't like the idea of the Govt choosing something (or developing it) as they want the freedom to choose ... even if it costs more or involves more work for them.

[danbuntu]

It's worth noting that as well as Malta at the top of this post the governments of Brazil, India and China and Korea plus regional governments in Spain, Portugal and probably some other are increasingly using OSS. Also the White House runs it's main website on OSS. So at the very least our government needs to look at this stuff.

[jamesfed]

I think I'm more concerned over 'open data' or the sharing of data between goverment orgnisations than I am the software that the goverment uses for these purporses.

[scholarpack]

Some good points here but I think it got off topic a little bit. Malta aren't looking to take up the reins on huge open source programs and help with the development - they are looking for places to save money where a like to like replacement can be used. Have a look at the comparison tables in the document (I know it's a long read, I'm still only halfway through). However, what's wrong with government projects to develop software which could then be released under GNU licenses for other (poorer?) countries to use. It's almost a more useful form of financial aid. Patient Administration Systems, Benefit processing systems, Vehicle licensing systems etc etc...The only companies the government would crowd out would be the ones that were making crappy and expensive software in the first place.

[GREED]

Some good points here but I think it got off topic a little bit. Malta aren't looking to take up the reins on huge open source programs and help with the development - they are looking for places to save money where a like to like replacement can be used. Have a look at the comparison tables in the document (I know it's a long read, I'm still only halfway through). However, what's wrong with government projects to develop software which could then be released under GNU licenses for other (poorer?) countries to use. It's almost a more useful form of financial aid. Patient Administration Systems, Benefit processing systems, Vehicle licensing systems etc etc...The only companies the government would crowd out would be the ones that were making crappy and expensive software in the first place.

 

I think the comments are quite valid, no government is going to recommend anything if it doesn't have a) total control and/or b) confidence that the software will work, fulfil requirements, be effecient, etc. Price would be some way down the list after these considerations.

 

Although the types of systems you have mentioned are extremely going points and useful examples that poorer countries would benefit from!

[mjs_mjs]

Everyone already uses open source. the likelihood is that this web page (or it's parts) coming to me went through 3-30 proxy/load ballancing/cache servers, all of the ones i know about were OSS, so local cache (squid), LGFL (squid) ect. I'm also pretty sure that all of the switches and routers on site are using a linux variant and/or include OSS code. And alot of govt website use open source tech like php. I think it's a common misconception that the govt doesn't use OSS, they do, but without knowing it.

[scholarpack]

I don't think using PHP on a government webpage quite qualifies as embracing OSS...in those areas (squid too), Linux is pretty much the de facto standard (for good reason!).

[EaglesNerd]

Government of Malta publishes their Open Source Vision.

 

via: https://www.mita.gov.mt/page.aspx?pageid=191

 

As I recall, the Maltese education system is based heavy on the English one.

 

Think how much this would save if everyone government member was using opensource software

[GREED]

I don't think using PHP on a government webpage quite qualifies as embracing OSS...in those areas (squid too), Linux is pretty much the de facto standard (for good reason!).

 

 

I was going to say the same. There is a invisible line between new open source and standards that are open source. PHP being an example, open but a standard these days to achieve a task.

[OK_Elena]

You are right that there is nothing wrong with hireing in extra consultants to help set up a system and maybe maintain it but this again adds to the cost removing one of the much loarded benifits of the solutions being cheaper.

 

I estimated spendings for maintaining free software for one of my clients. They were really surprosed. Surely they didn't change open source software to a proprietary one. But they approved suggestion to hire pros to maintain, but not hire exturnal extra consultants. It seems like a golden mean for non-profits, government and big businesses. If to tell about small-business, it is often impossible for them to hire pros and then depend on them. So, they buy proprietary software, install and maintain it by theirselves and request changes from supplier. When government approve or just promote something often it becomes a "standard" for everyone, though it is not their golden mean. I believe new government policy will demage interests of small businesses and proprietary software developers both.

[PhillipHamlyn]

(I am a Capita employee and am posting personal opinions unrelated to my employer.)

 

I'd like to pick apart slightly the different meanings of 'Open' and how the forum sees the capabilities and needs of governments within that context. From memory, "open" has meant many things during my professional career;

 

1) Originally it signified either a published standard of specification (typically for data transfer file formats). I remember systems which could transact CSV files being described as having 'open data transfer' capabilities.

 

2) Open then came to mean some kind of compliance with an open standard, rather than publishing a proprietary standard.

 

3) Open also seems to mean to some people 'open source code', where third parties can view a set of source code in order to critique/understand its function, but with the source code remaining under copyright.

 

4) Open also has meant the adherance to certain API standards such as COM etc in order that certain components of systems can be unplugged and alternatives provided from another source.

 

5) Latterly Open has come to mean software source code distributed with an open copyright where the originator no longer enforces their right to limit the copying of the source code.

 

In response to the original question posed, it seems to me that a government has a unique role in setting specifications for data transfer standards for data to be transacted within the government (such specification becomes the 'legal tender' of data). In this case the government is acting as a client for industry, and defines how industry should send data back and forth to it (for industry, substitute 'department of government' for education). If the governments data specifications are best met be a pre-existing international open standard, so much the better, but it makes little difference within the borders of that nation. A parallel with currency is useful here - governments specify 'legal tender' as being the specie that is used by the government to denominate government debt; it doesn't care what citizens actually use to trade with each other, so long as the government only needs to handle 'its' currency when it comes to government transactions.

 

Does a government have a unique capability to publish computer source code, and seek contributions to its construction ? Here I think the situation isn't quite as clear. I'm not sure any government department has a unique expertise in software construction; its not a function of state. If the argument is that a government should specify the method by which software is constructed when that software is paid for directly, or indirectly out of taxation revenues, then it follows that we believe the government to be uniquely capable of being correct in their decision on the method of construction. I don't see where this projected expertise arrives from. Where governments have used external consultants to provide that level of strategic advice, its not been universally popular or successful.

 

What is the functional difference between a product procured by government, then provided freely to its citizens, and one which the government specifies must be provided to its citizens under an copyright-free arrangement ? The first model is illustrated by the BBC. Essentially the government has 'picked a winner' and provided its product freely to its citizens; however the product is neither free to produce nor a community endeavour. Alternatively the government could have specified that all television (and radio etc) be provided free to its citizens and specified the mode of production and in addition declined to fund it. I would agree this would mean lower taxes, but would it mean a better outcome ?

 

I hope this slightly wooly line of reasoning does make sense to some of the forum participants; I know a lot of you are very positive about the Open Source/Free Source model, but I'd like to see if there are parallels in other industries where open specifications have actually led to a similar solution to that advocated in the Open Source/Free Source community. My PC is built from components that follow a mixture of open and proprietary (published) specifications - however I can't see how it could ever have been produced for 'free'. Is it that, because software reproduction has zero marginal cost, it leads us to believe that paying for an easily reproduced item is somehow incorrect. Even in the sphere of gaming (a non trivial industry) moddable games are a huge seller, customisable to the nth degree, but they are not free and are not Open Source - is this 'open enough' or is there an absolute neccessity for highly customisable software to be free at the point of consumption ?

 

Phillip.

[featured_spectre]

A thoroughly thought out post there, however, your argument about using PC components which are open standards is flawed...manufacturing costs go into mass producing these...and all of the varients

 

for open software, it only takes 1 person who wants to better the world to produce it, and each person can mod it as they see fit (if allowed by licensing) and does not have massive costs likes computer components manufacturers have.

[PhillipHamlyn]

which are open standards is flawed...manufacturing costs go into mass producing these...and all of the varients for open software, it only takes 1 person who wants to better the world to produce it, and each person can mod it as they see fit (if allowed by licensing) and does not have massive costs likes computer components manufacturers have.

 

If you can stand my 'dialectic' philosophy a bit more, I'd be intrigued to find out how this fits in elsewhere ?

 

Its the fact that software reproduction has zero marginal cost (i.e. one can copy it with almost zero additional cost) that means the "free software" model is more viable than otherwise ? OSS not only grants a license to re-use, it also (generally) grants that license free of charge. It doesn't neccessarily follow that all the other declared benefits of OSS hang off the "free of cost license" model. Bear with me;-

 

If the relationship between marginal cost and charge to the consumer is valid, then the following must be true - "it is better for society that products must be sold for a price equivalent to their marginal cost of production for a single unit". I believe this is the moral point being made by OSS - as you say "1 person who wants to better the world" is a moral position; it talks about "bettering" the world rather than making an argument that such a mode of production leads inherently to a better product.

 

If this argument is to stand, I suppose it must (on the same moral and philosphical grounds) be applied to all other products which have the same low marginal reproduction cost. All electronic media entertainment for instance would be required by a government to be provided free of royalties to their citizens. This seems odd; and indeed its not the case. The artist decides under what license they will have their work reproduced - the government has no role. When applied to something like the BBC it would required that 'all artists broadcast by the BBC must waive their royalties in perpetuity'. Here I'm trying to make a difference between what the artist might choose to do (out of the goodness of their hearts; or alternatively to raise their media profile) and what role a government has to play in mandating such an arrangement. Would this neccessarily lead to better music and films ?

 

How about the "millionth mini" - would that also need to be provided at a charge equivalent to its marginal cost of reproduction ? If it applies to the millionth mini, what about the first one off the production line whose marginal cost is enormous. It seems the manufacturer would need to act as some kind of charity, backed by some kind of investment (but not from the end-consumer; else its simply a proxy for a consumption charge negating the argument) which is written off immediately the product goes on sale. This is essentially what OSS authors are doing - waiving the initial production costs of software and charging the marginal costs on reproduction (nil) and the marginal cost of installation and training (some).

 

Thanks for debating this - its easy for this kind of thing to become swiftly accusatory.

 

Phillip