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.
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/)
It's not about requiring, it's about considering....
Also the most significant part of the bill is not really about open source...it's about requiring the use of open standards, and avoiding single vendor lock in....
Advanced users are users too!
I don't think it is the business of government to tell you that you should consider the use of open source software.
... unless you are a government sector employee. In which case they are your employer, and *can* tell you what to buy.
... at a far lower cost. But then the manager wouldn't be able to say, "I have a bigger budget than you!" This legislation helps, a little, to counteract some of this waste.
It *is* the business of governments to regulate how government sector organisations purchase software. They aren't trying to tell *you* what to buy
I see this as affirmative action against all those government agencies that automatically think that expensive, multi-national-owned software is intrinsically better than open source, or locally produced stuff from small vendors.
There are plenty of government managers who get their kudos from spending lots of tax-payers' dollars on big-budget projects, when something much more modest would do the job
I am anarch of all I survey.
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