Slashdot Mirror
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.
Sounds like Europe is getting way more of a clue than us in the US are. OK so most of us reading slashdot have a clue, but 99% of the sheeple here don't. Maybe those terrible treaties that make us abide by european laws would work in our favor when europeans decided that proprietary software in the goverment is a no-no and they make it illegal!
This report has been prepared under the sole responsibility of the contractor (Unisys Management Consulting Team).
Wasn't Unisys the ones that partnered with MS for the We Have the Way Out thing which advocated Windows over any UNIX? And now they're recommending Open Source software?
But the motivation does : they seem to want applications restricted to administrations. If the software can't be looked at by independant programmers, a great opportunity of control by the public is lost. To know that anyone could peek at your code is a great motivation to do it right.To know exactly how the administration comes to some decision is important (why do I pay so much taxes ?)
First off
there is a LOT of bespoke software running in UK government departments, and a lot of it was developed by third parties. Consultancies involved in this work have generally retained the IP to the work and in many cases have reused code, templates, and skills elsewhere for profit.
Nothing wrong with this in principle. The government doesn't really want to be in the software development business so it should be keen for others to reuse work as widely as possible. The larger the pool of users of a piece of code the more likely the govt will get some benefit back. The downside has been that not only does the govt pay through the nose for the initial development, they also pay a premium for future upgrades because they are now a captive user.
Avoiding this pain far outweighs the possible profit that could be made from retaining IP and selling to the highest bidder. (I've not seen many success stories coming out of Qinetiq which I believe is the UK agency responsible for commercialising apps that the govt owns. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one!)
Second off
The UK civil service is a passionate defender of the UK national interest. Trouble is that they often narrow the definition down to the interest of UK companies and do things that penalise UK citizens. There is a possibility that someone unaccountable will make an decision that using common apps across Europe will disadvantage UK software developers who will have to compete for govt business with equally skilled Europeans. It is also possible that someone will decide that the UK should be closely tied to US interests and that Microsoft is the only platform to work with.
The same debate has been heard many times on a wide range of issues such as banking law, European air traffic control, and even common weapons across the armies.
THE GOOD NEWS is that Open Source has the potential to be a different debate. The first government to develop or mandate sharable code has the best chance of establishing a standard for whatever app it is and therefore will avoid some later redevelopment costs. By opening the source code to scrutiny they also get the chance to check that the code does what they want it to do and nothing more. Less chance of hidden back doors, spyware etc.
And finally, it seems to me the big question is the ease or difficulty of identifying components which are truly sharable. Has anyone got any comparisons with major multi nationals that have tried to do this across their divisions?
Bill didn't say that to the Europeans (I'd expect Bill is clever enough to avoid making such a mistake). Rather, he said it to leaders of developing countries. The quote is from a conference in April.
I believe standardization and centralization are not only good but necessary for the future of Europeans.
Why only France? It seems to me that Germany also has a lot of influence. And even for the smaller countries, being in the EU gives them more control on their future, not less.