Slashdot Mirror

Well, the New Zealand government believes it is one giant entity, so passing OSS software between departments does not amount to distribution - even if passing from the Ministry of Defense to the Ministry of Transport. Of course, they also state that there may be obligations if an OIA request is received relating to the software.

Not really. Some governments do the work in advance to issue their own advice on this - for example, the New Zealand government issued an entire essay on the use of open source and distribution between departments. The same advice could be used by a private company without much if any modification.

What would put another nail in MS's coffin would be them calling the bluff and forcing NZ to take on quite a bit of Open source software. Once past the "OMG it's different then what we have always used" stage, it might be more then enough to the government agencies and lead to more OSS adoption.

I think that's exactly what has already happened! That seems to me to be exactly the reason why the State Services Commission has taken the position they have.

As the summary points out, the SSC has won one award already from the NZ Open Source Awards; in addition, they've been using SUSE (both server and desktop) since at least 2005, and in 2006 they published a guide on using open source software in government departments. (An early version of the guide, prepared for them by a legal firm that also worked for Microsoft, was discussed on Slashdot and received a lot of flak -- so much that the SSC rewrote the guide themselves as a result.)

So yes, I think this is the nail.

Incidentally, I mentioned those articles -- here's my collection. Let's get them out there to help build our industry.

They range in subject matters that assist me, with the majority being security related.

http://www.nbc4.com/money/11588165/detail.html
http://www.nbc4.com/money/11588165/detail.html
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71032-0.html
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Artic le&cid=1135552209280&call_pageid=971358637177
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20050704.gtkirwanjul4/BNStory/specialScienceandHe alth/
http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=176198
http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/060619 _hyperactive_bob.html
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/factsheets/ fs_faq.html
http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-legal
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/securi ty/privacy/story/0,10801,108101,00.html
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=storage&article Id=9004274&taxonomyId=19&intsrc=kc_feat
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=f6f 548f7-9dfd-49f4-9ff8-8ae8f4a2e2fd
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr 2006/tc20060417_996365.htm?campaign_id=bier_tca
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37 /b4000401.htm?chan=tc&campaign_id=bier_tcst0
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1 781895,00.html
http://panko.cba.hawaii.edu/ssr/Mypapers/whatknow. htm

I took a look at their paper on F/OSS and I liked it. The people who wrote it really did an effort to understand the issues.

...New Zealand's recent analysis of open source, which focuses on legal issues.

Having had a look through this site; here is a good link: http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-200303/chapter1.html which goes into explaining OpenSource.

People look at the original legal text, and they're assuming that you already know all the ups and downs of closed source software, and their legal ramafications, so hence, if we look at it from our perspective it sounds like an OpenSource bash, when in reality, its on the side of caution; its more, "before you use opensource, look at all the facts that make up the arguments for and against".

I think it's a real shame that whoever wrote their guidelines was more interested in spreading FUD than in giving unbiased information. But it's pretty clear to me that that person is a minority.

ensure that the public sector was able to make best use of information and technology to improve its service delivery, internal performance and overall capability.

The irony reaches unbearable levels when one reads, in its vision statement,

But, left to develop by itself, it has the potential to create new divisions in society between those who have the skills and tools to use the new technologies to participate in our democracy and those who do not.

Open source eliminates those divisions. By definition, proprietary software creates and perpetuates them.

Perhaps a concerned New Zealand citizen should call them on the contradiction between the paid lies and propaganda and E-government's stated vision.

Then again:

    "This guide was prepared by the State Services Commission (SSC)"
    http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-legal/chapter1.html

(The previous quote came from http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-legal/ )

Then again:

    "This guide was prepared by the State Services Commission (SSC)"
    http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-legal/chapter1.html

(The previous quote came from http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-legal/ )

Read the actual document, not just the summary. The actual document isn't that bad.

The stuff inside isn't that big a secret to most folks. It mainly boils down to, "Using open source software under licenses we've reviewed is okay, but be careful if you're developing code using open source software that we don't want released to the masses, because under some licenses, we may be obligated to."

In fact, this document is probably a good thing, in spite of a somewhat badly written summary. Check out Chapter 2:

(a) Only use open source licences that have been legally reviewed, including the GPL, LGPL, CAL, MBSD, MIT, which have been reviewed and are recommended by SSC for use in accordance with this guide.

(b) Obtain performance and intellectual property warranties from the supplier of the open source software, where appropriate and available.

This only makes sense. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, saying that you should use software with a license we're not familiar with, or to disregard the IP of open source authors.

Also, look just below it. It says that for software development that is for open distribution, it's okay to use open source software. For software that is for limited or closed distribution, don't. Is this new? Am I missing something? If anything, people who are interested in open source software can look at this document as permission to go forward, not as a hinderance!

I mean, I realize that the words "infectious" has negative connotations, but I just don't see this document in and of itself as a bad thing. And even though I'm a strong FOSS advocate, the stuff that's in there is stuff that I would recommend to any company, government or organization to consider in their decision whether to use closed- or open source software.

Read the actual document, not just the summary. The actual document isn't that bad.

The stuff inside isn't that big a secret to most folks. It mainly boils down to, "Using open source software under licenses we've reviewed is okay, but be careful if you're developing code using open source software that we don't want released to the masses, because under some licenses, we may be obligated to."

In fact, this document is probably a good thing, in spite of a somewhat badly written summary. Check out Chapter 2:

(a) Only use open source licences that have been legally reviewed, including the GPL, LGPL, CAL, MBSD, MIT, which have been reviewed and are recommended by SSC for use in accordance with this guide.

(b) Obtain performance and intellectual property warranties from the supplier of the open source software, where appropriate and available.

This only makes sense. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, saying that you should use software with a license we're not familiar with, or to disregard the IP of open source authors.

Also, look just below it. It says that for software development that is for open distribution, it's okay to use open source software. For software that is for limited or closed distribution, don't. Is this new? Am I missing something? If anything, people who are interested in open source software can look at this document as permission to go forward, not as a hinderance!

I mean, I realize that the words "infectious" has negative connotations, but I just don't see this document in and of itself as a bad thing. And even though I'm a strong FOSS advocate, the stuff that's in there is stuff that I would recommend to any company, government or organization to consider in their decision whether to use closed- or open source software.

Why should I not be able to access a government website because I use Firefox.

Why should I not be able to access a government website because I use Firefox.