"The OGC Standard Contract Clauses will contain a clause to ensure that the government secures full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of commercial off the shelf products it procures, and that it is clear that these rights cover re-use anywhere else in the public sector and the ability to release the code on an open-source basis. Where appropriate, general purpose software developed by or for government will be released on an open source basis."Purists will be indignant about the consideration of Microsoft's dubious OOXML format alongside the more standard ODF, but apart from that the action plan looks like a good one.
However, there are powerful vested interests who I'm sure will absolutely rail against this, and I fully expect lobbyists from Microsoft and a few other big software companies to do everything within their power to ensure that the proprietary grip on the public purse remains vice-like. The bleak economic situation and consequent need to reduce costs should provide adequate incentive to begin implementing the plan though. Still, I expect a new salvo of proprietary FUD to be launched, because even moderately clueless IT folk (aka the "working dead") are now beginning to see through the misinformation of the past ("Linux is a cancer", etc), and that there might just be the tiny chink of a realization that there is a life beyond Microsoft Windows.
Incidentally, greater use open source does not appear to be a party political issue, since the conservatives have also been making similar noises. Really this should be a no brainer, but as we all know affairs of state move very slowly and with titanic inertia.
4 comments:
It is a party political comment, since they're copying exactly what the Tories said a couple of weeks ago. It's probably an attempt at winning the geek vote.
As an idealist, I'd like to see them contribute to open source rather than just using it.
For example, the NHS computer system that they've spent a fortune on. Why can't that be open sourced; I'm sure that plenty of other countries who couldn't afford the 20 billion would be grateful and it wouldn't cost us anything.
At the end of the day, they'll do whatever the providers of expensive hospitality and party donations tell them.
This is why the usual suspects get all government IT projects despite making a huge cock-up of the previous one.
P.
Hah! Does the "geek vote" exist? I guess it does, but it must be quite a marginal constituency. Most of the geeks I know of either vote grudgingly, randomly or don't vote at all because there is no party that they feel represents their views (note that these people are not "apathetic", since they are taking some kind of principled viewpoint).
I expect that if the government does begin making significant use of FOSS then inevitably it will also make contributions and modifications to the standard software to suit its needs. This is of course one of the principle advantages over proprietary software.
Use of FOSS in health services is a very good point (it could be a poster child) because this would be a win-win situation for everyone concerned, with possible benefits extending well beyond national borders.
Government (especially the British one) works in peculiar ways, and as you say it is strongly influenced by lobbyists and back-room deals between public school ties. If FOSS can get a foothold though this may help to mitigate against the kind of large scale IT catastrophes which we've witnessed in the past. I think especially in the NHS one of the main criticisms has been that the government has tried to impose "one size fits all" software onto diversified local hospitals, with the mismatch causing all kinds of problems.
It also opens the door for a new kind of public service oriented voluntary work. I might be prepared to volunteer some of my services as a programmer if it was in the cause of improving public health or other services.
Tom Watson - minister of digital engagement - surpasses his usual level of waffle with yet another statement that sounds great but with no actual content to speak of.
At no point is the term "Open Source" defined and given that every pundit has their own independent definition (including Microsoft of course) the result is null.
I notice that the report name-checks the MS OOXML as an open standard (Open Standard is also undefined) even though there is not enough information in the "standard" for a 3rd party to implement it.
Of course everything hinges upon whether this plan is actually implemented, and it has to be noted that the government does not have a good track record of delivery.
If implemented, this might be the one beneficial thing which the Labour administration has done, after over a decade of broken promises and wasted opportunities.
Post a Comment