imho, I would have thought that Open Standards are for more critical for a government to require the use and enforcement of.. But even this would be a great win for open source in general as this would also force big companies to support properly open standards in their own products, which then also increases the viability of open source products that also support the standard in the future when migrations are considered.
But as far as "active participation" in open source is concerned, it would be great if any software commissioned by the government was then released as open source. This may be problematic though, as the government would (presumably) never actually write the software itself, but would outsource it's development. Companies that do write the software would then have an active interest in some kind of maintenance or ongoing support program with the government, and would probably see releasing the code to the public as an active threat to that interest. Still, the government could insist (as a large enough customer), and that would be beneficial too That said, obviously there are OS business models that work based upon the ongoing technical support requirements of organisations that do adopt the software, so working with a vendor that does this necessarily means that any bugs or features that the government finds or requires would be given back to the community as well. Anyway, at least it something, and in general I think that Kate Lundy has her head screwed on and is pushing in the right direction On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Kevin Saenz <kevsa...@spinaweb.com.au>wrote: > It's been a while since I have responded to slug emails. > > You need to put this in to perspective. There are a number departments that > actually use open source, to some extent. You must bear in mind that there > are others who have a strictly microsoft. > > I know of one department 6 years ago required the skills of Linux and Unix > people to convert the department from opensource to microsoft only > environment, because said department employed a "microsoft ranger", and to > this date he is still their CIO. > > What you have to be aware to be successful with tenders or projects you > need to sit on a board of vendors to even be considered for a job or > contract for a scope of work. the Federal government is a large market and > you have fight your case on a departmental and divisional level. > > there are other departments who employed the same web technology as > President Obama. > Yes Open source has a place in Public sector IT but sadly it's not in > business critical areas of the sector, and it has been visible for a long > time. > > > > > > >> The policy includes three principles as well as some draft text for > government departments and agencies to include in future RFT documentation: > >> * Principle 1: Australian Government ICT procurement processes must > actively and fairly consider all types of available software. > >> * Principle 2: Suppliers must consider all types of available software > when dealing with Australian Government agencies. > >> * Principle 3: Australian Government agencies will actively > participate in open source software communities and contribute back where > appropriate. > > < > http://www.katelundy.com.au/2011/02/03/welcome-news-for-open-source/comment-page-1/ > > > > > > Policy available in HTML at > > < > http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/guide-to-open-source-software/index.html > > > > > > Marghanita > > -- > > Marghanita da Cruz > > http://ramin.com.au > > Tel: 0414-869202 > > > > > > -- > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > > > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
