Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Bill For Australian Capital Territory
leinad writes "An article in The Age newspaper claims the Australian Capital Territory is set to become the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt a bill which says that public bodies should, as far as practicable, consider the use of open source software when procuring computer software. (The Australian Capital Territory is the small territory/state of Australia in which Canberra, the capital of Australia, is located.)" Seems like requiring blueprints from contractors, to me.
the democrates are a bit of a joke in australia atm im supprised it passed
isn't the bit about "considering open source wherever practical" which is easy to weasel around. I like this bit:-
The bill, which goes before the ACT Legislative Assembly tonight, also specifies that public bodies should not use software that does not comply with open standards or standards recognised by the ISO or software for which support or maintenance is provided only by an entity that has the right to exercise exclusive control over its sale or distribution.
That'll be the bit that gives most trouble to the beast of Redmond...
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
Define maintenance.
I'm sure you'll find that Redmond will have no trouble satisfying this clause.
I have been pwned because my
Requiring open source is like requiring openly designed cars, electronic devices, etc... for the government business. It doesn't make sense and it is not the right way to promote open source. It is totally discriminatory and unfair. I would reject such an idea and will consider it an abuse of the government power against the free will of people.
Promoting open standards is another matter though, cause that really gives people the power to use whatever they want, be it open source or Microsoft software, it doesn't matter.
So go work for Red Hat. Open source is producing jobs at Red Hat. Technological improvements always destroy some jobs, but others appear to take their place.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
As a programmer this is a huge concern for me obviously. But in this case it's Australian government so they are interested in keeping as much of the money in Australia as possible.
:)
There was a great article in Australian Developer a few months ago explaining the economics of open source for (non US) governments and the way that supporting FOSS keeps more money in your country and improves your balance of trade.
This is not the case in America for obvious reasons
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
What's the government, a third party person? The government is me. Government is using my money, my resources. I am one of the guys who maintain the government, not the government itself. It has to ask me first to take that sort of decision. If everybody says, let's use open source, I have no problem. Otherwise, who the hell knows why those government officals did this thing. Maybe they know someone who works in one of the companies which provide open source software. You never know? Would it be better if the government said, you should consider using Microsoft software? This is not about open source, this is about your own freedom to choose. Nothing should take it away from you, not even open source zealots. You don't use open source because you have to, but becase you chose to. And nobody can make decision for you, neither government nor open source zealots.
At least you have a job. There are tons of North Americans who don't. 40 000 a year is far, far better than nothing. The market is adjusting. Deal with it. That's why people save money when there ARE making more money.
You're a troll and probably an M$ astroturfer but I'll bite so those new here won't be fooled:
The source of the OS matters just as much as for application, but for reasons you haven't mentioned. These include:
Documentation - it is impossible for API documentation to be complete. Source is frequently needed to make clear what will happen under rare circumstances eg. virtual memory traps during a strcpy() in a device driver.
Back doors - without source it is impossible for the government to make sure that public data is not being used for private purposes. "Trust me" is not good enough for any non-trivial project. eg. voting
Unusual circumstances - Governments are large organisations with many specialised operations. To say one size fits all is simply wrong. Source is not a panacea but can help solve problems that closed source vendors won't even look at. eg. support for military spec hardware.
Forking - Closed source software forks every bit as much as open source source software and in addition will always eventually no longer be supported. With open source software an customer can make their own choices about when to drop support and not be beholden to a vendor trying to maximise profit.
---
I sometimes think that closed source vendors are engaged in 1984 style double-think when it comes to closed source API's. By definition an open source API, assuming all else is equal, will allow a customer at least all the options of a closed source API.
---
Astroturfers are scum
That's silly. It's like saying that having the freedom to remodel your building means that you're going to undermine its foundations and break its compliance with the building code. Of course you don't do that.
When you have a large site with higher potential migration costs, you would be fiscally irresponsible to hand your system over to a single-source vendor. You wouldn't sign a building contract which specified that only the original builder could fix the roof if it leaked, would you? He could charge any price he wanted -- your only options would be to pay it, or to live in a leaky building, or to demolish or abandon the building and build another. That is what lock-in and migration costs mean in proprietary software.
It's true that you, or your staff, may never need to make changes to your software yourself. However, you still benefit from the fact that others can, and that you are not locked-in to someone else's way of doing business.
One can only wish that they became more similar, and our Prime Minister moved to Texas as well.
I'm not Australian, so I probably have no right to comment, but that change seems good. There is nothing more infuriating than being forced to use a tool "just because". The wording "prefer" could be weighted in different ways. If the deciding factor in choosing is the openness of the source not the usefullness of the application, everyone losses. User are forced to use an inferior product, and they know it, and an open source project that may have blossomed, starts to get a bad reputation.
For example, I am not an artist, and when I want to touch up a image on my computer, I use the GIMP. My brother is an artist and when he manipulates an image, he uses Photoshop. I chose the GIMP because of its price (directly related to its openness), but if my brother were forced to use the GIMP, he would hate it. It is a good tool, but not the best. And those that care about the difference don't want the choice determined by openness.
On the other hand, forcing all to be considered, including open source, is a win for everyone. Users get the best tool, good open source projects get to play on even ground, and losing open source projects know exactly what to improve on.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Requiring the blueprints for a building is important insofar as it is necessary to remodel the building in the future.
wtf? requiring plans for a building is considered necessary (usually on a local level) because the designs need to be reviewed for competency, accordance to various codes, and to make sure the builder isn't cheating to cut costs, etc.; all of which are in the public good. if you really wanted to draw a good comparison, you could say any software used in at least the goverment (or the public sector as a whole) should be required to adhere to a strict set of safety, security, and other guidelines before being allowed use...in other words a set of rules much like the building code.
"I DARE you to make less sense!"
Open source encourages standards- because people like interoperability. People like being able to upgrade freely - not have to upgrade one expensive license only to find out they have to upgrade all their other sofwtare to work with it(2k to Xp for instance).
Software is always in a state of flux. That is what things like Portage/Gentoo, Debian/Apt and Redhat RPM are all about.
The definition of what is OS and what is apps is becoming increasingly blurred. Is KDE an App? Part of the OS? Somewhere in between? The same could be said for many MS services. Although the GUI has now been integrated furthar down(instead of Win on top of dos), would you say Explorer (as in your desktop) is part of the OS? Or just a nifty utility shipped with it?
I think having all the source code is a good idea, both for upgradeability, transparency, security/trust and maintainability.
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol