EU Report Advocates Pooling Open Source Software

bnoise writes "'European administrations should share software resources, a report published by IDA says'. IDA stands for 'Interchange of Data between Administrations' and is an European Commission initiative promoting the use of ICT in the exchange of information between EU administrations. The report extensively (147 pages) describes and comments Open Source Software licenses and promotes the use of source sharing among administrations and beyond. Its 'Legal Framework analysis' section alone is worth reading if you (still) don't know what license to choose for your next software development. Also from one of the authors: 'Study into the use of Open Source Software in the Public Sector' (June 2001)." ZDNet has a summary of the report, and the report is also available in non-PDF formats.

Comments

Re:Wow

[larry bagina]

It is interesting, that Europe, home of 2 world wars, (and plenty of agression before that), multiple languages and multiple cultures is coming together to share currency, and now source code.

Of course, Europe is (currently) much more socialist than the US, and doesn't believe in software patents, fertile breeding ground for Open Source.

Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[gentlewizard]

Just creating a pool of open source applications doesn't guarantee that a specific country's administration will decide to use applications in the pool. There is always a "not-invented-here" factor to consider in any human endeavor.

There is also the matter of recouping the cost of development. Which country will want to spend money creating applications, if the rest get them for free? A chargeback/share model of some kind would have to be developed to provide an incentive for countries to contribute to the pool.

As usual, the biggest problems to solve are not technical ones, but human ones.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[ch-chuck]

Which country will want to spend money creating applications, if the rest get them for free?

Because they're not in the software for profit business? Say I want to build a house a certain way, but there are no pre-existing blueprints for one just the way I want it. So I hire an architect and we work and work and make up exactly what I want and then built it. Does it really detract from my life just because someone else can use the same blueprints, obtained for the cost of duplication, if it just happens to work for them as well? If I have a software need, I can either 1) purchase a license for an existing product and since I'm only purchasing a license, not the rights to the software, am left dangling at their whims like a marionette (Msft: "We want you to upgrade now, be a good customer and buy our latest or greatest or we can make things difficult for you!") or 2) use existing freeware and live with the warts or 3) get into the open source game and a) use what exists and modify it to your needs or b) wait for someone else to make a version that fits your needs.

Now one can easily complain, "Hey, we spent X amount of France's taxpayer money developing this app and Belgium gets it for free!" but the country or company that hires developers to create and maintain software the way they want it gets exactly what they want, and the freeloaders have to life with that or hire their own developers. In a way it's like the software market anyway, you can only purchase off the shelf what the majority want or what Msft research decides you shall want.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[roalt]

The EU has a large budget on their own, of course paid by all member states. So, if they decide to make an "open source software pool", the EU as a whole will probably donate money for it.

A lot of EU money is spent on letting EU members work together in european projects. Open source is an excellent way to cooperate internationally. Even if it's just for drowning...

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[PatientZero]

But now let's look at it from the point of view of the Architect. He has to provide a[n] income for his business, his family and his new car.

Honestly, that's the architect's concern -- not his customers'. In a capitalist society, each person must provide for their own lifestyle. It is not the responsibility of the government to support the software industry. The government, like a business, needs software to perform various functions. And like a business, it must make choices that are in its best interest.

If each government in the EU agrees to join this collective commons and share software with each other, then who pays for what will balance itself out. One may supply software for budgeting; another writes software for distributing welfare; and so on.

True, this will decrease the market for custom software firms, but it will increase the market for custom software developers. In the end it may be a wash, with the added bonus that the governments -- and thus the EU citizens -- are better off. I don't see where the moral argument comes into play, but let's address that anyway.

Now the free software advocates claim this second method is immoral and unethical. But I have to ask why?

First, I'd ask why you assume that "the free software advocates" -- which seems to imply all or a majority -- "claim this second method is immoral and unethical." I'm a free software advocate, and I don't see any moral or ethical problem with commercial software. Capitalism lets the market decide. If there weren't companies that felt they were deriving advantages from using free software, it wouldn't survive. Clearly, people want free software, there are developers willing to create it, and there are even some companies willing to pay for it.

Where some people, including Bill Gates, raise an issue is with governments declaring that they will focus on using free software or open source. They claim that it is improper for a publicly-funded institution to discriminate about what type of software they will use. However, this isn't discrimination but merely choice. Most companies want to use well-written software that meets their business needs rather than something buggy that barely satisfies their goals [this is not a comparison of free vs. proprietary software]. It's another business decision. If a government decides that proprietary software doesn't meet their needs, what's the problem?

This striving for awards is a large part of what makes this country great. . . . If instead you get everything handed to you without any effort, you become lazy.

I didn't say all rewards are bad. I said that many people tend to do things only when they expect a reward. There certainly is altruism in the world -- I just wish there was a lot more of it.

But I don't see very many people advocating that all roads should be cleaned for free, and that anybody who wants to be a paid Janitor is immoral and evil.

And I don't see the majority of free software people advocating that all software "should" be free, as that implies forcing the freedom by banning all proprietary software. Similarly, I haven't seen anyone saying paid software developers are immoral. I certainly wouldn't claim that, being one myself.

I believe that if this goes over in the EU, the governments will end up hiring a lot of developers to create software that will be shared among the governments. How is that any different than hiring a bunch of trash collectors and sharing any new learning that comes out of that?

Love quote from ZD page

[josh crawley]

I just love the quote that ol' billG said.... here it is.

"The so-called (Free Software Foundation)... says that these other countries other than the US should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialise that software," said Gates.

Well, umm, no shit BillG. As a government, would you spend your miney on a company in another country for proprietary software for internal matters, or put the money in developing better GPL/FSF type of software (where there is already base). So yes, the GPL keeps money (and code) out of your pocket.

By the way billy, nice job on the DeToqueville (whatever) essay. You didnt pay much for it, did you?

Re:Wow

[pe1rxq]

the freedom to protect yourself with firearms

The horror, I have lived my entire live without the FREEDOM of getting shot by a trigger-happy firearm owner....

Firearm owners tend to play judge a little to easy (else they didn't need a gun, do they?). In a good society guns are controlled, and the controllers are controlled by an elected government and thus are controlled by the people themselfs.... You are using guns protecting yourself, you just don't give them to people who don't need them.

he freedom from having lawyers sue on your behalf without your consent

Thats a right I can live without, if somebody really needs sueing on my behalf surely I will know best...

Jeroen

A few thoughts

[PHAEDRU5]

1. Bill's out of his gourd if he thinks telling the Europeans that OSS is anti-capitalist will get him anywhere. If anything it'll ensure the Europeans go more into the OSS camp.

2. Is anyone worried about this tendency within the EU towards standardization and centralization? I mean, the French definitely want things back as they were in 1680, or thereabouts, with France in control of the continent. Does anyone think it's time for Europe to acquire a Bureau of Sabotage?

Shaking my head

[theolein]

I sometimes think you Americans deserve a company like Microsoft: You complain long and loud how monopolistic, evil etc they are, but the minute someone outside the US actually does something about it, then that someone is immediately either communist (the EU in general), fascist (anything to do with Germany) or incompetent (usually some comment on France). This says more about stereotypes in American consciousness than anything else.

The EU is definitely not paradise, but they have a fairly good record of not blowing too much money on things which the tax payers have to foot, and OSS makes a lot of sense for me as a tax payer(cost), me as a citizen(the source code) and me as a programmer(the development stays here in Europe and not in Redmond).

The person who asked which country will pay for this: They will obviously have to work some agreement out on sharing of costs, but I see that being a lot easier to get through the various parliments than explaining that our tax money goes to a company in Washington State.