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.
Requiring the blueprints for a building is important insofar as it is necessary to remodel the building in the future.
However, most operating systems do not require alteration at any level below the distributor. Users are actively discouraged from changing their systems. Changing the system means possibly breaking compatibility with other systems which leads to headaches down the road as the forks diverge.
OTOH, software is always in a state of flux. Government software is always being updated, and as long as the underlying OS doesn't change serious portings of the software do not need to take place. In the case of end-user software, it is important that the government have the software source code in hand so as to be able to contract out to companies as necessary to update it.
But OS software is different, in that it is less likely that a change needs to be made for the purposes of government work. COTS is the name of the game, and as long as the systems are standardized to some degree things are hunky dory. There is no need for source code in the case of an OS.
I have been pwned because my
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.
I'm working for a company whom I've convinced to give the whole "open source thing" a looksee.
This legislation means a lot to us - even though it doesn't cover the whole of the government, (as near as i can tell) it only applies to the ACT government.
We will now get a lot more interest in our services - and once we're in one government department, federal departments can't be that far away!
Exciting times.
It is a territory. It is not a state. There is a difference.
The Australian Capital Territory is the small territory/state of Australia in which Canberra, the capital of Australia, is located.
Just like the Washington/Washington D.C. concept.
CLUG projects include samba and rsync, so they could be called a 'shining light' for the ACT.
According to The Australian, this is "part of a coordinated national approach by the Democrats, which has seen similar legislation introduced in South Australia and federally and under consideration in [New South Wales] (whose capitol is Sydney) - calls for government to "consider" the purchase of open source software in procurement plans." The article also mentions that "the original version of the bill would have required the ACT to 'prefer open source software' but that was of course neutered. Appearently in the last six months alone the ACT has spent $15 million Australian ($11 mil US) (Converter) on Microsoft software and support for the next three years.
Just another two cents from the Norm.
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/)
actually working for a government department that pretty much exculsively uses open source for our development projects i can say... it works... and pretty well too.
we are a small department, and without a large budget have managed to complete projects in a similar, if not smaller amount of time and that would have otherwise cost millions.
yes. millions
go figure.
"Yeah, Yeah, Yeah." - Lennon, McCartney
The bill was pushed through last night (about 12 hours ago) the full hansard is not yet available but I will link to it when it comes up.
Something that is just as interesting as the full hansard is the minutes and the changes that were made to the bill that has now been passed.
The line
'as far as practicable prefer open source software'
was changed to
'as far as practicable consider open source software'
Full minutes:
Are here
Page 8 has the bill
Page 10 has the ammendments
According to the Sydney Morning Herald
This post patent pending.
Cool, maybe the Australian taxation office will be able to read those applications forms i've been sending in openoffice format now? Wooh, i might get a job soon.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
We've got a lot more detail on this, including links to the actual legislation, at RiotACT (Canberra focused slashlike)
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I'm an ACT resident, and discussion about this bill came up at work today. In regards to that, I've got to wonder why the hell a bill was needed for this - why is a policy, strictly enforced, not enough?
Are our politicians so inept that they have to hold onto the contraints of the law in order to purchase some new software? Wait...I think I just answered my own question.
I hope these governments will pay back too. If they are benefitting from open source, they should somehow invest to promote open source software.
... shed some light on this.
The ACT governments is not one of the 7 state governments, nor does it represent the Australian federal government.
My understanding is that the ACT Government represents the ACT (strange that)... an underfunded town that is smaller and less influential than Munich.
It's nice to see the activity, but don't get over excited, this isn't going to rock anybodies world.
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.
NO the government is not you, it's us. The government is not using your money, it's using the funds from (what in the ACT is called) 'consolidated revenue.' Once you have paid your taxes that money is not yours in any personal sense, any more than the money you spent on that can of coke is yours, notwithstanding the fact that you may be a shareholder of the CocaCola Co. Once again it is ours.
And because it is ours, and we can (and in the ACT must) vote, the government better spend it in a cost effective manner (no multi-million dollar salary packages in the public service I'm afraid). If using OSS, or products for which the service market is competitive, saves the government money then it is quite the correct thing for the government to do.
Beyond the niggardly concerns of how consolidated revenue is to spent, however, there is a greater issue of principle here. 'Access' and 'Transparency' are supposed to be touchstones of democratic government. Clearly it behoves a government to embrace standards which are non-proprietary and open insofar as it is practicable.
This is not about open source, this is about your own freedom to choose. ... And nobody can make decision for you, neither government nor open source zealots.
Once again, nobody is making the decision for you. You can use whatever you like. This is about what it is appropriate for a democractic government to use. You need to learn to disguise your teenage libertarian paranoia a little better.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
or on the other hand if they share some of that wine around the bill may actually pass!
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
According to Computer World the bill was approved today.
I work for an IT company, among the largest, providing services in the ACT. I'm also one of the few people in this company that will even consider open source solutions to any given problem instead of jumping immediately to a Microsoft offering. Open source solutions are almost invariably dismissed if a Microsoft soution can be cobbled together. While I applaud the intent of this bill I don't think it'll change the status quo.
Government departments, local, State, or Federal have two common traits:
* They are risk averse
* They want someone to blame when things don't go right
Adopting an open source solution when all departments around you are Microsoft shops and all the local IT companies are Microsoft shops is seen as violating both traits.
Risk comes from the possibility that things may not interoperate (without your user base having to actually think for themselves). The first time a Minister or Dept. Head cannot open a memo or check a calendar because of file format problems someone will have to answer. Risk of this occurring increases as Redmond moves to close its file formats.
When open source fails there is no-one to blame. Even though blaming MS for failure in their software is pointless insofar as rectifying the problem it does provide suitable cover for bureaucrats. You and I both know that solutions to most open source problems can be had with a modicum of effort. However, if you cannot buy local IT company support for OpenOffice or whatever then you have to provide this effort yourself - something Australian governments have spent the best part of a decade divesting themselves of the ability to provide.
Good idea, and I hope it works, but I won't be holding my breath.
The ACT is a administrative territory for the national capital, and we also had an OSS electronic voting system at our last election that is based on Linux
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
The bill was passed today. When the Hansard page is updated, you'll be able to find out who supported it. Out of the 17 members of the Legislative Assembly, only 1 is a Democrat (1 Dem, 1 Green, 1 Independant, 6 Libs, 8 Labor). So, if the Dems, Greens and Ind sided with the Liberals, the Dem would prove efficient, but otherwise - not much use in blocking or ensuring bill go through, really. But in this case, I'm proved wrong, so thumbs up.
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
Hey I live in Canberra. Apparantly Linus was visiting Tridge and they went and checked out the fairy pengiuns at the National Zoo and Aquarium. It was the zoo where Linus got bitten on the finger by those cute, yet feisty little creatures! I'm so proud of that fact!
Canberra seems to be the epicentre of Linux in Australia. The Australian National Uni where I spent some time is very pro-Linux and Open Source.
Did you know that there are Uni's in Australia where people graduate with an IT degree, yet never once get their hands on Linux or BSD? Sad, very sad.