Slashdot Mirror
SF Gate on Open Source Government
Bruce Perens writes: "At the San Francisco Chronicle's SF Gate, Hal Plotkin points to Sincere Choice as the right compromise for an IT renaissance in Government including both Open Source and proprietary software. The article is extremely flattering to yours truly, but a good push in the right direction from a well-respected commentator."
The way this works is, you mandate formats, not applications.
So you say, "all forms must be in PDF, all email via normal RFC822 mail (MIME allowed), documents in some-or-other format".
Who decides just what constitutes the "openness" of a format?
It just sounds like the right feature list will "win", and you'll have to explain to the PHB (the gov't PHB, worst kind) that Microsoft's XML isn't open, and Exchange isn't the same as sendmail + Cyrus IMAPD.
Unless I'm reading it wrong.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
"The good thing is, California's lawmakers won't have to pay a dime to anyone to formulate the policy, since Perens has already done that job."
I will eat my (win)socks if this was not the plan from the beginning. Fortunately, no-one will ever know, if it was not :)
The article mentions a great point, which is that no government agency should use proprietary formatted commercial software. This means no more MS Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, etc., unless they are saved as RTFs and CSVs.
I would love to see some work done on open standard file formats for common office applications, such as word processing, spreadsheets (that include formulas!), presentation, charting, calendars, small databases (like for FoxPro or Access), etc.
I know there are open source apps for these things, but you still have to translate the files from one format to another. Ideally, a single XML standard would exist that allows all the applications to use each other's files.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
I agree that legislating interoperability would go a long way to fixing the problem. How does anyone propose to get legislation to this effect?
The Internet/Computing industry gave $16,138,743 in the 2002 election cycle. If there is one thing that these people understand, it's Return On Investment.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Er, the people that pay for the software so used? That is, the taxpayers, perhaps?
You could've hired me.
Simple question besides posting to /. what the hell has Michael ever done?
Bruce on the other hand. So I think Bruce wins.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Here is the problem I see with mandating file formats "open"...
.rtf? They can then say (even with "some" legitimacy perhaps) that Word supports open standards.
What stops MS from making the default (in Gov. Editions anyway) Save feature in Word to be
I'm sure they'd figure out how to support open standards with most of thier suites, knowing full well not many would actually use them.
Aww hell, why not? I told you so.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I agree with Perens' demand for open document formats. So long as the format is open, I have choice in what application I use. I can choose to read a PDF file, for example, with gv or Acrobat Reader. The competition comes from who can make the product more convenient to use.
When formats are closed, then one product must dominate. This is what we've already seen happen with MS Office, and we're seeing again with Internet Explorer, since MS is leveraging its market dominance to saturate the market with non-standard HTML (ie the Microsoft Document Object Model), thereby locking everyone into using IE.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
Um... I'm not a customer of the government, I'm one of its bosses. That's what a republic is about. I pay taxes. I vote. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" and all that stuff, you know? Thus, as one of the bosses and owners of the government, I get a say in how it's run.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
What is the purpose of having a patent on something if you are going to make it available royalty free and available on a non-discriminatory basis. Once you do that, what value does the patent serve other than to prevent others from trying to patent it?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
>I don't buy cars based on what brand I like, or how their business practices are.
I doubt the first, and despise the second.
>I buy the best for the money.
The problem is, best is a very vague criterium and often includes preferences for a certain company, especially considering cars.
What car do you drive? A Kia? Toyota?
Concerning business practices:
What way do you have to influence companies business practices besides buying or not buying their products.
When speaking of buisness practices, you probably thought of MS and their behaviour towards other companies. Ignorance of their behaviour is not a reason of despise. But business practice may include support of suppressive goverments, enviromental issues. So, a general disregard of business practice in buying considerations is.
Shouldn't a government, which should represent the people in its most ideal form, consider the business practices as well?
Should a goverment buy from a convicted offender?
Well, I'm a bit more pragmatic than the above words make me look.
In case of MS I'd say... whatever.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
The problem here really is the definition of open. The MS-Office file formats could be called "open" because: [i] there is a published spec and [ii] there are multiple software packages that claim to both read and write them (WordPerfect Suite, OpenOffice, etc.)
Now slashdotters will claim, correctly, that the spec is incomplete and constantly changing and that the other software packages aren't 100% compatible. But MS has mucho lobbying muscle and the "State Commission on Open File Formats" will approve MS-Office formats, trust me.
"Sincere Choice" will become the "Sincere Status-Quo" pretty quickly.
I love the analogy Mr. Plotkin makes near the end, that letting software vendors lock the state into proprietary systems is similar to letting construction firms install their own toll bridges on freeways. Hits the nail right on the head.
As for his closing question, "Will our legislators do their [job]?" Unfortunately the answer is another question: are they doing it now?
Say there are two competing products that meet the interoperability requirements of SincereChoice. One is Open Source, the other is proprietary secret source, but with interfaces and formats suitably defined to qualify for the SincereChoice requirements.
If I pick the proprietary one, then next year when there's an update that fixes the security bugs, but the updated version does not meet SincereChoice requirements, what's gonna happen? If the law doesn't let the purchaser buy the update anyway, they'll have to switch.
So forseeing that, the purchaser will pick the Open Source version because they know the security fixes will be available without changes that prevent update purchases under the SincereChoice conditions.
Of course, if the SincereChoice law allows purchase of non-compliant updates to a compliant original purchase, then this logic does not hold, but then the policy is a sham anyway.
Also, Bruce Perens is not the first person to write about using government buying power to require open file formats...I'm probably not the first either however (although my article was discussed on LinuxToday...where're you getting your ideas from Bruce?!?)
- adam
I don't buy cars based on what brand I like, or how their business practices are.
- Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?
To follow on the oft-repeated analogy: would you buy a car with the hood welded shut and an EULA that required you to only have it serviced at the manufacturer's shop, threatened you with jail for fixing problems yourself, and comitted you to paying a premium if you replaced the car with a competetor's model?- Vehicles are, essentially open-source.
- the hood's not welded shut
- We can move from make to another at will.
- We can change whatever parts of them we want -- or go to the manufacturer for 'proper' repairs.
- If we can figure out how to put a GM engine into a Ford chassis, we won't have to worry about either company suing us.
- we don't have to drive in different lanes depending on what model car we have
- A city car won't maliciously 'seize up' if we take it 'off road' on a flat piece of desert.
We often quietly put up with these sorts of things from software vendors. They call it 'standard industry practice'. We (customers) are the ones who pay through the nose. If the automobile (or most other) industries did the same things, we'd have lynch mobs out.Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I actually take issue to the government using PDF forms; to actually save the data on a form, Joe Sixpack must purchase Acrobat! It is not a functional electronic form without that minimal level of support, so we loose some level of access to our government. Really, who has a (working) typewriter anymore?
>> Now slashdotters will claim, correctly, that the spec is incomplete and constantly changing...
Doesn't XML represent a potential "open" data exchange tool that changes and grows about every 5 minutes?
Isn't it grand that people affiliated with or paid by companies making money on open source are so disinterestedly helping the State of California save money?
Don't try to mandate government purchases of any kind of software. A company selling open source is just as capable of ripping off California as is Oracle.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What about custom software?
Does an open data format suffice?
Not all the information lies in data.
Isn't it sensible that the goverment should own all rights to modification on custom software?
Imagine, a new tax is introduced, so the tax software has to be changed.
Either that, or it can contract another company to write the whole software from scratch.
Which one will be more likely? What will this do to competition?
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Oh now I see. Since some people don't have modern computers (OSS-based or otherwise) the Gov can't use computers at all in conducting the business of the public. I mean, at some point that's the lowest you can limbo in the service of egalitarianism.
Look, there is always paper and the USPS. Libraries have computers for free use, and generally keep them within a few years of "current". Same with public schools. In a few years hence anyone with a cell phone will probably have access to a microbrowser.
Universal access to technology is an interesting topic, but not a realistic goal when defined narrowly as dekstop PCs. Freedom of information is not only interesting but frankly vital.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
How about, security, accountability, ability to interoperate with other software, long term viability of both the software and the support structure? None of these can be guaranteed if the interfaces and file formats are secret, or patented and available only to a small subset of the population.
Corporations and the Government are not the same thing. They work according to different rules. Corporations exist to maximize profit and serve the shareholders. Governments (in theory at least) exist to serve the people. Part of that service involves safeguarding the information it gathers, while at the same time being open and transparent in all its activities.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
- adam
- adam
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
AutoCAD might be quite flexible, but you can't do taxes with it :).
> The necessary flexibility could be gained through open source, or by clever software design that supports a great deal of user-definable action.
This are some problems.
First, there is a limit to flexibility. You can't think of everything.
Second, flexibility means complexity. This complexity results in higher costs and lower performance.
A highly indebted goverment elected for 5 years, would not make a wise decision paying tenfold amount of money for a higher flexibity.
Lastly, this reminds me of the "second system syndrome". Makeing highly flexible software most often results in a desaster.
Among the most major reasons causing a project to fail is
unclear requirements.
Overly amibitous is another.
In case of the tax software, the requirement would change from handling all taxes to handling all possible taxes.
I think this could qualify as unclear requirement.
To make a reference to a different country than the US.
In Germany, the federal and local police wanted to replace the old software (from the 70s IIRC) with a more flexible system.
The resulting software, being overdue and breaking the budget, responded to a simple query in several second.
Mandating flexibility by design could actually mean mandating two of the top reasons of project failure.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
they also need to be available with no license restrictions, and no requirement for an NDA. This is, in fact, much more important than "free of charge".
Microsoft have already used the "free of charge" loophole to publish some of their API's "free of charge", but with a NDA that forbids you to use them in GPL'ed code (not mentioning Samba with a word).
So it is important to stress that the API's and ABI's should be both public and usable by everyone with no restrictions.