The global economy is restructuring towards knowledge intensive output, as is evidenced by the phenomenal rate of growth in related new technologies and skill intensive activities. It is therefore critical for (my state / nation)'s long term future that we have a robust and vibrant local Information Technology (IT) industry. The effect of the IT boom over the past decade on government departments has largely been overlooked. Whilst many government documents are now stored in electronic format, and additionally are often distributed to the public in a similar fashion, precautions for preservation have either been minimal or not addressed at all. Where the government uses a proprietary file format, it could be held to ransom when it upgrades its software, without any guarantee that the new software will be compatible. Worse still, if the company that owns the proprietary file format ceases to exist, the government, and the public would not be able to upgrade or use old files. The government, its departments, and the public, should not be subject to possible vendor lock-in (which is where they are dependent on a single corporate supplier and are at the mercy of that supplier's direction and future cost structure, as ultimately the supplier forces upgrades through format incompatibilities). When the government releases documents all citizens should be able to view them without unreasonable difficulty. In recent years, Open Source software has arisen as an alternative to the dominant model of proprietary software. As more and more everyday activities (banking, tax returns, voting, etc) are moved into the digital realm, the continued use of proprietary software places too much political and economic power in the hands of a small number of trans-national private corporations. Government use of Open Source software is a major step in the right direction, and it is in the public interest for the government to both utilise and encourage Open Source. Open Source software is highly configurable and transparent: the source code can be audited by any competent programmer. This ensures that it contains neither anything of a suspicious nature nor inefficient methodologies and/or algorithms that consume excessive machine resources, and dramatically speeds up the evolution of the software from initial prototype to full maturity.IT industries, particularly those utilising Open Source models, can significantly bolster the economy of (my state / nation)'s rural and regional areas with minimal environmental impacts, therefore also supporting population decentralisation (see planning and transport policy).
1. Background
August 10, 2006 - 11:35
August 11, 2006 - 15:53
Open, transparent, and royalty-free standards are a much better way to go than pushing just "open source". If a commercial company steps up and can implement something specifically for the Government that deals in these open standards, then that's great.. pushing just open source means for a Government accepting what's out there currently, or getting into the development business themselves - which no Government wants to do. Naturally they should ensure that their chosen "open standard" is actually useful to the public right now, and does not require a financial outlay to read it.
August 17, 2006 - 17:44
Although I agree the uptake of 'open source' is very desirable, the core problem you highlight with documents relates to 'open standards'. A decent policy needs to be as flexible as possible to achieve its aims, and while open standards are essential, open source is not. Each application choice should be based on merit and circumstances, not arbitrary value judgements.Obviously open source has a plethora of benefits that recommend it, but it is counter productive to tie it to open standards.
November 7, 2006 - 22:34
Is there a problem pushing Open Source AND Open Standards? What if the policy dealt with them separately, but still dealt with both of them and encouraged the use of both of them?
August 10, 2006 - 12:47
s/(When the government releases documents all citizens should be able to view them without unreasonable difficulty)/\1 or personal expense/
August 17, 2006 - 14:57
This is covered in points 2.5 and 3.2.1 but it's probably worth noting here too.