Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Boosts Open Source Adoption
Cameron Logie writes "The UK Government has today announced full backing for greater adoption of Open Source solutions in the public sector. According to the article at the BBC News site, 'Government departments will be required to adopt open source software when "there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products" because of its "inherent flexibility."'"
Finally is someone opening their eyes? Cheers,
So that they can give it to the poor destitute W^HBankers.
Deleted
I meant "Is someone opening the eyes of the people which run this country"... Cheers again,
This is great news for the F/OSS world. It will come down to how one defines "no significant overall cost difference". I assume this can be spun to fit anyone's needs. So I guess I am in the wait-and-see camp to see how far the governement moves into the Open Source world.
The benefits of open source over closed source are obvious!
We can now look forward to a more community driven approach to oppression.
>>>"if there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products"
So does that mean if MS Office costs $200, but OpenOffice costs $0, then the government employees can't adopt OpenOffice because there's a cost difference?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
FTA:
The problem is that the "overall cost" depends on how much marketing $$$ is thrown in.
Every software sales goon is busy fabricating reports which show significant cost difference between using their products and using Free products.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Spin... tell me when a viable open-source project actually makes a big *official* splash into anything approaching a UK government system. Various schools have been trying it for years on their own and never got anywhere because it's always seen as "nice" but then nothing ever happens further and money is still poured into Microsoft's wallet every day. The other IT projects run the UK government are a farce - starting with the NHS computerisation, through to the systems used for the police national computer and similar systems.
I *want* to see it. I am so pleased when I hear of countries trying it, but I know that in my own country this is nothing but spin. I would seriously consider emigrating to a country that treated its IT systems correctly and did things like this when they were needed. I haven't seen it happen yet, though.
Sounds like decision-making will become less questionable by the openness OSS introduces at several levels: source, formats and price (not necessarily zero, but leaving little room for overspending to factor in kickbacks), to name a few.
In a perfect world, politicians would now start campaigning and competing to advocate and introduce whatever affordable and sufficiently functional software keeps existing hardware usable even longer, minimizes public spending and allows for the biggest tax cut.;-)
It would have been terrible for future generations' access to public records if further decades of material had to be stored in proprietary, DRM-encumbered crypto bottles on closed-source systems which can't be kept alive without the consent of their corporate overlords, and if these could get schools to indoctrinate kids to obey them.
Now all they have to make clear (to prevent monopolies from being built by other means) is that there should be no such thing as software patents...
Todays headlines are the result of *years* of work behind the scenes.
The UK Opposition party, the Conservatives, are absolutely serious about implementing an Open Source, Open Standards, Open Procurement policy should they win the next election.
Government departments are increasingly talking about sustainability (ie "we've run out of money") with Becta being the first to actually do something about it (appoint Sirius as the first and only Open Source company on a Government procurement list).
There is at least one National Open Source infrastructure project just about to come out of stealth mode, and politicians are smelling some positive press commentary for once.
This may be an essentially defensive move in the light of George Osborne's recent pronouncements, but it will inevitably lead to real progress in the historically extremely difficult (for Free Software) political scene in the UK.
Coming soon:
UK government suspects bears s**t in the woods.
I don't think it means a lot.
In practice since "delivers best value for money" can mean whatever you want it to mean the statement doesn't amount to a lot.
"Tom Watson MP, minister for digital engagement, said ..."
Well, he had better say something hadn't he? - before the opposition parties do. And specially since the main opposition party already has. That's the context in which I think one should see this.
Frankly, the current administration has been in long enough and has pissed off virtually everyone in the country - that must sound familiar to U.S. citizens, contemplating their last U.S. president - so what its representatives say isn't going to matter a lot. They - just like much of the electorate - will be out of a job sooner rather than later.
I think the sitting party was to some extent held together by the personality of the untrustworthy but attractive ex-PM, Tony Blair. Now he's off the scene and a grumpy, unattractive and too-obviously arrogant power-seeker is centre-stage the contempt that, in a democracy, is always born of time and familiarity is starting to kick in. Formerly friendly papers such as the Times are running swingeing cartoons.
The current leader won't last long. But even if his MPs knife him, neither will they.
So I think this is more a PR-gesture from Tom Watson that anything else. But even if not in the long run it doesn't matter what he says, because the current administration's days are numbered.
I recall, just a few years ago, the state of Massachusetts announcing it would consider switching over to Linux. Microsoft quickly deployed the flying corporate propaganda monkeys to spread doubt and mistrust over "untested" software. Britain's a lot bigger than Massachusetts.
Should be interesting, in any case.
I've looked into Microsoft licensing for a number of things in the past and a few of the clauses make for interesting reading.
Let me preface this by saying I'm in the UK, I've been speaking to MS UK and it's them this information comes from. I have no idea how well these terms would stand up in a court of law or how flexible they are if you've got government-sized budgets but.... if you want an educational license - or, for that matter, one of the more flexible enterprise license schemes, one of the terms of the license is you MUST buy a license for every computer that's physically capable of running the software.
Every PC, every laptop, even every x86-based Mac.
Of course you can go down the "Open" licensing route which (AFAIK) has no such rule but while I haven't priced it up, I bet it quickly becomes drastically cheaper not to.
Suddenly, OpenOffice doesn't look like such a cost saver unless you roll it out to everyone. Nor does Ubuntu.
http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/
Full document/info here:
http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/index.asp [Copy and paste of the actual 'policy' below]
The last update to this policy was 5 years ago,
Reads to me like:
-> HP/EDS/Microsoft/Accenture/$privateCompany have informed government 'advisers' they will be using more open source software. Many of these companies have 'open source' investment/business interests - Probably because there is less money being chucked at them from hedge funds/banks/gordon brown etc.
-> Government turns this into 'policy'
-> This get Spun to the BBC [UK Government back open source software]
-> I read it on slashdot
Back to private eye......
6. The Government's policy is as follows:
1. Open Source Software The Government will actively and fairly consider open source solutions alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions,
2. Procurement decisions will be made on the basis on the best value for money solution to the business requirement, taking account of total lifetime cost of ownership of the solution, including exit and transition costs, after ensuring that solutions fulfil minimum and essential capability, security, scalability, transferability, support and manageability requirements.
3. The Government will expect those putting forward IT solutions to develop where necessary a suitable mix of open source and proprietary products to ensure that the best possible overall solution can be considered.
4. Where there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products, open source will be selected on the basis of its additional inherent flexibility.
5. Non-Open Source Software The Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to proprietary software. In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those proposing proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved.
6. Where non open source products need to be purchased, Government will expect licences to be available for all public sector use and for licences already purchased to be transferable within the public sector without further cost or limitation. The Government will where appropriate seek pan-government agreements with software suppliers which ensure that government is treated as a single entity for the purposes of volume discounts and transferability of licences.
7. Open Standards The Government will use open standards in its procurement specifications and require solutions to comply with open standards. The Government will support the development of open standards and specifications.
8. Re-Use The Government will look to secure full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of commercial off the shelf products it procures, so as to enable straightforward re-use elsewhere in the public sector. Where appropriate, general purpose software developed for government will be released on an open source basis.
9. Where the public sector already owns a system, design or architecture the Government will expect it to be reused and that commercial arrangements will recognise this. Where new development is proposed, suppliers will be required to warrant that they have not developed or produced something comparable, in whole or in part, for the public sector in the past, or where they have, to show how this is reflected in reduced costs, risks and timescale.
10. When suppliers are proposing a third party product there should be full price transparency. If there is a pan-Government agreement there should be the option to source through this where doing so would maximise overall public sector value. The Government will expect to be charged only the cost the supplier incurs unless the supplier can clearly and transparently provide evidence of the additional value created.
I wonder if they will consider the case where an open-source solution does not completely cover the requirements, but the cost of hiring a developer to make it meet those requirements is still less than the cost of the proprietary solution?
Will they be willing to hire developers to create required features if it is still within the cost limits? Because that would be win-win for everyone.
(They should consider long-term licensing costs for the proprietary software of course, since in the OSS solution once the feature is implemented there are no continuing costs thereafter.)
As a citizen, I don't really care whether my gov (US) uses Microsoft, Mac, Solaris, Linux, or AmigaOS. I *do* care when they publish documents I need to work with in an undocumented proprietary format. And no, OOXML doesn't fix that (it only pretends to). Yes, I can get by with Open Office DOC importer for the time being.
This is just a press release, it's intended to neutralise the Conservatives open source policy announcements. Nothing is actually going to happen.
For Office and just those costs for OpenOffice.
I suspect there's a £200 per seat saving with one option.
Is that where you get the full DNA of a child prior to adoption?
ya who cares what UK does its about as bad a place rights wise to live almost as china , only diff is the illusion of freedom, go ahead take a ppicture of a cop today at the next protest and see what that gets ya
they intend to use it to keep track of all their surveillance activities.
Can anyone translate the previous message?
The UK government may have the cohesion of slush, but at least they can do one sensible thing...
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
This is a good strategy because all these days Closed source proponents have been advocating there is NO significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products.
Open source is about transparency and Governments must accommodate and appreciate transparency wherever possible.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
I'm pretty sure I can take a photo of a policeman in England. In the US however I'm pretty sure I'd be beaten.
Lots of shit about the CCTV camera's however the US police force of laughable in comparison.
Very happy! We need to see more governments and businesses see the benefits of Open Source!
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
I think this is a good idea. It's true that we need to see more governments and businesses see the benefits of Open Source.