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/)
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.
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 ($11 mil US) (Converter) on Microsoft software and support for the next three years.
Just another two cents from the Norm.
actually working for a government department that pretty much exculsively uses open source for our development projects i can say... it works... and pretty well too.
we are a small department, and without a large budget have managed to complete projects in a similar, if not smaller amount of time and that would have otherwise cost millions.
yes. millions
go figure.
"Yeah, Yeah, Yeah." - Lennon, McCartney
I don't think it is the business of government to tell you that you should consider the use of open source software.
... unless you are a government sector employee. In which case they are your employer, and *can* tell you what to buy.
... at a far lower cost. But then the manager wouldn't be able to say, "I have a bigger budget than you!" This legislation helps, a little, to counteract some of this waste.
It *is* the business of governments to regulate how government sector organisations purchase software. They aren't trying to tell *you* what to buy
I see this as affirmative action against all those government agencies that automatically think that expensive, multi-national-owned software is intrinsically better than open source, or locally produced stuff from small vendors.
There are plenty of government managers who get their kudos from spending lots of tax-payers' dollars on big-budget projects, when something much more modest would do the job
I am anarch of all I survey.
You're a troll and probably an M$ 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
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.