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
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'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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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.