Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Builds Open-Source Public Repository
An anonymous reader writes "Massachusetts on Wednesday took the wraps off a new software repository designed to let government agencies make more efficient use of open-source software. The repository will be managed by the Government Open Code Collaborative, a newly formed group of seven states and four municipalities that will contribute and download open-source software and proprietary software designed by government agencies for their use."
I wonder if other states could use it.
If so it would make it easier for them to
move to open source.
The is great. I suppose this might be a little "off topic" but I think it is due in no small part to the growing public awareness that has come about because of the SCO case. We are starting to see a much more critical eye from the press and public officials to FUD put out by anti-OOS pundits. This is in no small part to the fact that more than ever, the OSS position is more organized and sounds a lot less like a bunch of hippies frothing at the mouth against "big business". We (many of us) have known for a long time the benefits to society and by way of those that work in the Public Sector, bodies that are here to benefit society, the ideas behind OSS, but in the past these ideas have not been articulated in a way that is understandable to the non-geek, non-IT centered thought patterns. A good PowerPoint wouldn't hurt (joke). You have to tailor your arguments for your audience.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I'm not an open source advocate, but I don't see how this could be a *bad* thing.
I mean...it could be mostly worthless, but the idea, at least, is sound.
At the very least, if another department needs software, they already have a catalog of what other departments are using.
As for SourceForge...true, lots of unfinished and probably worthless stuff there. But I've gone there plenty of times and gotten exactly what I needed.
That's a rather inane comment. People here are really just interested in one thing, when you get right down to it: being able to make software work the way they want it to behave. It seems that Massachusetts' CIO is also interested in seeing this happen. What is wrong or zealous about being happy to see a state government doing its part to use open source software and possibly lower costs and improve productivity in the process? If you don't like it, don't participate. There's no reason to troll or rain on everyone's parade.
"We are accountable for not only what we do, but also that which we don't do." -- Moliere
Government agencies looking to use the repository must sign a contract with the collaborative. This grants an agency a license to any open-source and proprietary software it finds in the repository and prohibits that software from being used to make a profit. This is a crucial component, since Massachusetts law prohibits commercial entities from making money off products developed by the commonwealth using taxpayer money.
The key words in the above are "prohibits that software from being used to make a profit". This means that any software they develop will either have to be done from scratch or from a very permissive license such as BSD, which allows the modification of the license of the code.
Furthermore, this license does not fall under The Open Source Definition or The Free Software Definition for this same reason.
Before you call it a "good thing" did you ever stop and consider whether that statement is accurate?
Just because it's open source, it doesn't automatically make it more useful, or imply sufficient support, or even meet the specific needs of the government.
Hell, using OSS doesn't even mean that it is in fact cheaper! I work at a government institution and we have worked with free software. Sure, the software itself didn't cost us anything, but getting support for the piece of crap cost us (literally) millions.
The grandparent poster is RIGHT ON! Only blind zealotry can explain the knee-jerk "OSS IS ALWAYS GOOD!" reaction to these stories.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Well, as I see it, the government is directly involved with developing software. Well, since we are the government WE are paying for the development of software, and yet WE don't get access ot that source
Here's an example. The state of MN just wrote some software to help track the amount of salt that it uses during the winter time, allowing them to better track and order salt in a timely manner.
Who paid for that? Well, me, and a bunch of other Minnesotans. Well, don't cha think that Wisconsin, our happy go-lucky-badger-fearing state would LOVE to have the code? Sure WI could buy that package from MN, but I'll bet that Wisconsin will just go ahead, and reinvent that wheel. Government works like a business (but with a bit more transparancy) and most businesses are heavily involed with the NOT INVENTED HERE SYNDROME.
So WI and MN tax payers are paying twice what they need to. So, why not share the code? Chances are that WI will have projects that MN would want. Is it going to cut jobs? Probably not - it's just going to make things more efficent. Developers will still need to adapt the packages to the current environment.
We're paying to have this software developed - we might as well get a copy of it!
Ohmigoodness they aren't practicing the gospel according to RMS!
This isn't linux or the HURD. This is stuff developed with taxpayer dollars. All the bits and bobs written for various agencies stuck in one pile. Under MA law, taxpayer dollars can not be used for corporate R&D.
This isn't incompatible with the GPL, the GPL is incompatible with this. Doesn't stop them from using linux, but it does prevent them from contributing to it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It sounds like you're joking, but just in case...
If you're worried about the government infecting open source projects with hidden code or something, then don't. It's open - that's the point. At the very worst, it would be on par with the proprietary software in use now. Hidden code would be seen.
Are you concerned that the government will screw up open source with bad management? So don't use software that is run by bad managers - simple solution. It's not like you don't have choices. If someone doesn't like the direction a government entity is taking a project, it will fork - not unlike the way things are now.
I just hope you don't get modded insightful as this sounds like one of those comments that gets insightful when it's anything but.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
It is finished. The tunnels are open.