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."
The ITD website has some really kewl stuff on it like a legal toolkit for using Open Source software. Press releases on the sit seem to indicate that Republican Governer Mitt Romney is behind the move to open source. He'll be getting my vote when he runs for re-election.
...this? It sounds like the same thing.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for another GForge installation... one more for the list!
The Army reading list
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
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.
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!
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...
Granted much of the software isn't as user-oriented, but that's not the point. The point is it is another government institution that has put real effort into making free software available to the public.
;)
http://fermitools.fnal.gov/
This is just one example I personally know of. Is this common at all? I'm too lazy to sift through every *.gov domain hunting for a software page.
Must sign a contract
Must use only stuff already in the repository
Can't ever make money - prohibited by diktat - so what's my incentive ?
Furthermore, how do you enforce these things ? If the repository is public, I could very easily take bits & pieces & repackage it as proprietary software & sell it, thus making money off products developed by the commonwealth using taxpayer money. If the repository is not public, then how is it open source ?
Seems overly complicated. Why doesn't the government of MA simply provide monetary incentives for programmers to contribute to existing repositories like sourceforge ? You could get things moving so much faster that way...or am I missing something here ?
Free / Open source software is an effective way of making sure that the people benefits from the development. It's the ultimate public service. A penny spent on FOSS is a penny earned in future projects and software for the masses, while a penny spent on proprietary software is merely a penny spent.
Lemon curry???
See, the last outfit I worked for, a private brokerage company, had 15,000+ employees scattered across a dozen cities. They wanted to do the SAME EXACT thing - "build and manage an OSS software repository". Same spiel - "We are using OSS all over the place, but each department has its own variant & version, so lets get together & pool our resources, build an internal repository of OSS & then manage it ourselves".
Guess what ? After a few months & a few hundred thousand dollars, the thing simply fell apart. The "department to build & manage OSS repository" was disbanded & people moved on.
Why ? Because folks in insurance wanted functionality that folks in mortgage didn't want that compliance wanted that legal didn't want that sysadmins wanted that webmasters didn't want that Perl hackers wanted that Java developers didn't want that....you get my point.
Different versions and variants exist because different people want different things. Trying to come up with a common software repository is just a pipedream.
Now, all the above happened in a PRIVATE company, where there are things like profit margins & paychecks - real incentive to make things happen. Imagine a government trying to "build and manage an OSS repository", with umpteen departments, terrific bereaucracy, and absolutely no commercial incentive. The mind boggles...