EU Report Advocates Pooling Open Source Software 103
bnoise writes "'European administrations should share software resources, a report published by IDA says'. IDA stands for 'Interchange of Data between Administrations' and is an European Commission initiative promoting the use of ICT in the exchange of information between EU administrations. The report extensively (147 pages) describes and comments Open Source Software licenses and promotes the use of source sharing among administrations and beyond. Its 'Legal Framework analysis' section alone is worth reading if you (still) don't know what license to choose for your next software development. Also from one of the authors: 'Study into the use of Open Source Software in the Public Sector' (June 2001)." ZDNet has a summary of the report, and the report is also available in non-PDF formats.
sharing (Score:2, Funny)
Sharing.
The Register (Score:3, Informative)
Wow (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, Europe is (currently) much more socialist than the US, and doesn't believe in software patents, fertile breeding ground for Open Source.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
The horror, I have lived my entire live without the FREEDOM of getting shot by a trigger-happy firearm owner....
Firearm owners tend to play judge a little to easy (else they didn't need a gun, do they?). In a good society guns are controlled, and the controllers are controlled by an elected government and thus are controlled by the people themselfs.... You are using guns protecting yourself, you just don't give them to people who don't need them.
he freedom from having lawyers sue on your behalf without your consent
Thats a right I can live without, if somebody really needs sueing on my behalf surely I will know best...
Jeroen
Re:Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)
Strange, I hang out with firearm owners all the time, and I've never been shot, either.
No offense, but I think this speaks to a certain prejudice amoung gun-control advocates. I can't speak for all gun owners, and certainly not persons who own guns illegally (e.g. gangbangers). Speaking just for myself, the reason why I own and carry a concealed weapon is because, if it comes to a matter of life or death, them or me, I want overwhelming force on my side. I hope I never have to use it; I go out of my way to avoid getting into situations where I might need it; but I'm glad it's there, in case I need that absolute last resort.
I agree that firearms ownership is a poor solution to the crime problem. The best solution to crime is to create genuine economic opportunity for the poor, preferably by encouraging investment in poor neighborhoods.
Which is exactly the situation I don't want; any more than I want the elected people regulating my freedom of speech, my freedom to worship (or not worship) as I choose, my daughter's right to an abortion, etc. Even in a democracy, there are some individual freedoms which must remain inviolate, in spite of the Will of the People.
I'd rather have individuals determine need for themselves. As long as someone doesn't have a criminal record, is sane, and knows how to use a firearm safely, they are probably more compitent to determine their own needs, individually, than the People, collectively, would be.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)
Besides, it's handy to have along if you lose your job/girlfriend/motorcycle, go bonkers, and decide to shoot 20 people at an airport.
No offense, but a lot of people carrying guns for "personal protection" just means that there are a lot of guns on the street, bought and carried for the sole purpose of shooting people (only under extreme duress, of course, or heat stroke).
Point of fact: in my country the ratio of weapons to population is 3 to 5. Death by shooting is extremely rate. Why? Because people are not allowed carry guns in public. Most of the killings that do happen, happen at home. By ordinary people who own a gun for sports or hunting.
Think about it.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)
First of all, I resent the characterization. If you're going to argue the point, don't resort to FUD. It undermines your credibility. OK?
Second, you have no evidence that violent crime rates are higher because of the legality of concealed carry. There is evidence (on both [tsra.com] sides [pcvp.org] of the gun control debate) that concealed carry does not lead to an increase in crime. Admittedly, this is because most concealed carry permit holders are white men who live in the suburbs -- that is, the persons who are least likely to need a firearm. But, that also contradicts your claim that legal concealed carry leads to more guns "on the street."
If you ask me, the high violent crime rate in the United States is due to completely different factors, such as poverty, racial segregation, poor education, or maybe even the hormones in our food.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
If that assumption is anywhere near true, your right to "protect" yourself is in fact harming you...
Re:Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)
It wasn't intended as such, as you surely realize. These things do happen, however.
Second, you have no evidence that violent crime rates are higher because of the legality of concealed carry.
The evidence, as you say, is inconclusive either way. Common sense, however, dictates that the more people carry guns around on their person, the more likely it is that guns are used in altercations. If you can't prove conclusively that concealed carry improves overall safety, the default assumption should be that it doesn't.
The psychological effect is even more difficult to quantify. From a small child I have been taught to respect human life, and that pointing a gun towards a human being is wrong. No exceptions. Concealed carry, however, brings with it the mindset that, in certain circumstances, it is ok to point a gun at another person and pull the trigger. These guns are owned for that and only that purpose.
The issue is no longer absolute, but many different shades of gray. What, then, do you tell your child, when he/she asks why you have a gun under the seat? Will you teach him/her to use it when, inevitably, the question comes up?
If you ask me, the high violent crime rate in the United States is due to completely different factors, such as poverty, racial segregation, poor education, or maybe even the hormones in our food.
Undoubtedly true, but somewhat beside the point. Surely the availability of guns in general is also a factor in lethal crime rate.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)
Hmm, did you know that a vast majority of people with criminal records started their life without a criminal record?
Re:Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)
Good point, but having a record of violent crime is a pretty good indicator that that person will commit another violent crime. Until that point, I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt.
Similar but unrelated fact: about 90% of all conviced murderers ate bread 24 hours before they committed murder.
Obviously we should ban bread. It's far more dangerous than guns could ever be.
(Note: sarcasm)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Ewww, must not feed the troll, must not feed the troll, must not... oh, what the hell...
A right nobody else in the world seems to care about. Indeed, I've never met a European who wishes he could carry a gun. I, on the other hand, would be really upset to give up my right to drink alchohol in public spaces. Don't you miss having a some wine when you go on a picnic? Don't you find it strange that 18-year-olds in the U.S. can vote, carry weapons, and fight for their country, but can't go into a bar?
I think that's Germany you're talking about. Yeah, there are plenty of quirky laws out there. But even with that strange one, Germany doesn't come close to the level of litigation enjoyed by the U.S. I suppose you could say that Europeans enjoy the right not be sued by idiots who hurt themselves doing stupid things.
This one baffles me. Especially given your current government. Care to give an example of what you're talking about? The only Western European country with more surreal politics than the U.S. is Italy (but then, these are the same people who pick fights with bulls). The rest of Europe is pretty sane.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Whoops. Indeed. What a silly brain fart. So I guess the Italians have no excuse then :-).
Yes, they have an excuse (Score:1)
Re:Yes, they have an excuse (Score:1)
Hmm. So you're saying they're mad on speed? I like that :-).
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Actually, Italy is quite different, although still "interesting" as economic and social functions sort of carry on independant of the Govt. Partly due to the fact that they change frequently (although they are getting better).
They too, have many odd laws, but this is got around by conveniently ignoring them.....
Open Source Development HOW-TO (Score:5, Funny)
As everyone knows, Open Source software is the wave of the future. With the market share of GNU/Linux and *BSD increasing every day, interest in Open Source Software is at an all time high.
Developing software within the Open Source model benefits everyone. People can take your code, improve it and then release it back to the community. This cycle continues and leads to the creation of far more stable software than the 'Closed Source' shops can ever hope to create.
So you're itching to create that Doom 3 killer but don't know where to start? Read on!
2. First Steps
The most important thing that any Open Source project needs is a Sourceforge page. There are tens of thousands of successful Open Source projects on Sourceforge; the support you receive here will be invaluable.
OK, so you've registered your Sourceforge project and set the status to '0: Pre-Thinking About It', what's next?
3. Don't Waste Time!
Now you need to set up your SourceForge homepage. Keep it plain and simple - don't use too many HTML tags, just knock something up in VI. Website editors like FrontPage and DreamWeaver just create bloated eye-candy - you need to get your message to the masses!
4. Ask For Help
Since you probably can't program at all you'll need to try and find some people who think they can. If your project is a game you'll probably need an artist too. Ask for help on your new Sourceforge pages. Here is an example to get you started:
Thousands of talented programmers and artists hang out at Sourceforge ready to devote their time to projects so you should get a team together in no time!5. The A-Team
So now you have your team together you are ready to change your projects status to '1: Pre-Bickering'. You will need to discuss your ideas with your team mates and see what value they can add to the project. You could use an Instant Messaging program like MSN for this, but since you run Linux you'll have to stick to e-mail.
Don't forget that YOU are in charge! If your team doesn't like the idea of giant robotic spiders just delete them from the project and move on. Someone else can fill their place and this is the beauty of Open Source development. The code might end up a bit messy and the graphics inconsistant - but it's still 'Free as in Speech'!
6. Getting Down To It
Now that you've found a team of right thinking people you're ready to start development. Be prepared for some delays though. Programming is a craft and can take years to learn. Your programmer may be a bit rusty but will probably be writing "hello world" programs after school in no time.
Closed Source games like Doom 3 use the graphics card to do all the hard stuff anyhow, so your programmer will just have to get the NVidia 'API' and it will be plain sailing! Giant robot spiders, here we come!
7. The Outcome
So it's been a few years, you still have no files released or in CVS. Your programmer can't get enough time on the PC because his mother won't let him use it after 8pm. Your artist has run off with a Thai She-Male. Your project is still at '1: Pre-Bickering'...
Congratulations! You now have a successful Open Source project on Sourceforge! Pat yourself on the back, think up another idea and do it all again! See how simple it is?
Re:Open Source Development HOW-TO (Score:1)
3. Don't Waste Time!
[...] just knock something up in VI [...]
s/vi/notepad/
Other than that, a very accurate portrayal of 90% of sourceforge projects. Don't get me wrong, it's a great resource, but far too many people embark on stuff far beyond their ability and expect others to flock to their project to finish it off...
Re:Open Source Development HOW-TO (Score:1)
you killed me.
hillarious.
Where did you steal that?
Re:They can't afford it. (Score:1)
Unisys (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasn't Unisys the ones that partnered with MS for the We Have the Way Out [wehavethewayout.com] thing which advocated Windows over any UNIX? And now they're recommending Open Source software?
Re:Unisys (Score:2)
Re:Unisys (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unisys (Score:1)
moderators are obviously metaphor challenged
Grass? Sun? Wind? We're talking about Unisys making a profit here!
Re:Unisys (Score:2)
I have noticed that as well. Sarcasm also appears to be difficult to grasp. And never try black humour.
Grass? Sun? Wind? We're talking about Unisys making a profit here!
Certainly. They sells their expertese to whoever is willing to pay for it.
What I have noticed, however, is that in many companies the number of people who really do get opensource has been increasing rapidly. The university nerds who grew up with Linux projects have real jobs now. In some case the management hasn't woken up to it yet. I think we're going to see some interesting developments in the future.
Dammit Moderators ! (Score:2)
What about poetry and metaphor ?
Now stop pretending to be insensitive geeks and mod parent up.
Note to parent poster:
in the future, to add some geek appeal, add a fake "-- Larry Wall in <1234567890@wall.org>" signature. Anyway, he said so many things you might even get it right.
Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:3, Insightful)
There is also the matter of recouping the cost of development. Which country will want to spend money creating applications, if the rest get them for free? A chargeback/share model of some kind would have to be developed to provide an incentive for countries to contribute to the pool.
As usual, the biggest problems to solve are not technical ones, but human ones.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:2)
Easy, if country A could put in a backdoor to some peice of, say, financial software that would allow them to look into country B's or country C's internal finances, then it would be well worth country A's time to develop that software.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:2)
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they're not in the software for profit business? Say I want to build a house a certain way, but there are no pre-existing blueprints for one just the way I want it. So I hire an architect and we work and work and make up exactly what I want and then built it. Does it really detract from my life just because someone else can use the same blueprints, obtained for the cost of duplication, if it just happens to work for them as well? If I have a software need, I can either 1) purchase a license for an existing product and since I'm only purchasing a license, not the rights to the software, am left dangling at their whims like a marionette (Msft: "We want you to upgrade now, be a good customer and buy our latest or greatest or we can make things difficult for you!") or 2) use existing freeware and live with the warts or 3) get into the open source game and a) use what exists and modify it to your needs or b) wait for someone else to make a version that fits your needs.
Now one can easily complain, "Hey, we spent X amount of France's taxpayer money developing this app and Belgium gets it for free!" but the country or company that hires developers to create and maintain software the way they want it gets exactly what they want, and the freeloaders have to life with that or hire their own developers. In a way it's like the software market anyway, you can only purchase off the shelf what the majority want or what Msft research decides you shall want.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:2)
Let's say the architect cost $20,000.
In your world, one person spends $20,000 and everybody else benefits for free.
Now the other world view is to have 200 people get together and chip in $100 each, and all get to benefit equally from the resulting work. If you get 400 people it's only $50 each.
Are you losing anything in life? I don't know, I guess it all depends on how charitable of a person you are.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:1)
If other people come along after the design work is done, they can accept the result as is for free, or pay a little more to revisit the plans and customize it for themself. The harm to the original designer? None at all. My pool is just the way I like it.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:2)
If you dismiss them, you gain nothing. If you give them a copy of the plans, you gain nothing. So what's the difference? True, maybe they would be willing to pay you $500 for the plans, but you can't claim to lose $20,000 if they don't because you already paid it and got what you wanted.
It's sad, but our (U.S. for me) culture has such a strong desire to strive for awards that we don't do anything without the possibility of a payment of some sort. I get odd stares on the street if I pick up someone else's trash and throw it in the trash can, like, "You're not being paid to do that; why did you do that? How strange!" Maybe I did it just because I like a clean street rather than a dirty one? It's a similar impulse with creating Free Software.
Luckily, some people really do like to give.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:2)
This is absolutely correct.
But now let's look at it from the point of view of the Architect. He has to provide a income for his business, his family and his new car. Now he can go about this many ways.
One way, he can market himself as building the ideal unique home for those of taste. For only $20,000 he will design a custom home that will amaze your friends and make your coworkers envious. It's all custom work, and let's assume he can complete 8 house designs a year this way. So this pulls in $160k in revenue a year.
Or there is the other way, where the architect spends the same amount of effort but designs a good house with a good layout and would appeal to a broader population. He spends a year designing 8 such homes, same as before. But instead of marketing it as unique, he markets them to large scale home development companies across the country. Let's say it's a royalty basis, $200 per home built using the plan.
But in this case, from those 8 plans, he's able to attract 1,000 people as customers per year, all across the country. That's $200k in revenue a year, far more than he received the other way.
Now the free software advocates claim this second method is immoral and unethical. But I have to ask why? From the customer perspective, they got what they wanted... a nicely designed house for a very low cost. From the architect's perspective he got paid for his work, and even made a little extra profit. Next year he uses that profit to hire more people and expand his business.
It's sad, but our (U.S. for me) culture has such a strong desire to strive for awards that we don't do anything without the possibility of a payment of some sort.
This striving for awards is a large part of what makes this country great. It encourages innovation, growth, trying new things, making things better. If instead you get everything handed to you without any effort, you become lazy. This has always been one of the fundamental problems with Communism. That and the corruption because human nature desires one to seek a better life, and the only mechanism for that under Communism was corruption.
I get odd stares on the street if I pick up someone else's trash and throw it in the trash can, like, "You're not being paid to do that; why did you do that? How strange!"
Now this I don't see at all. Perhaps it is the state I live in(Minnesota), but we have still have a strong sense of community and many here donate time and money to worthwhile causes. I see people out on the highways cleaning up all the time.
It's a similar impulse with creating Free Software.
Perhaps. But I don't see very many people advocating that all roads should be cleaned for free, and that anybody who wants to be a paid Janitor is immoral and evil. But that's the viewpoint the Free Software Foundation promotes.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:1)
This is where the analogy starts to get alittle sticky. With software the "architect's cut per home" is alot higher in proportion to the cost of the product. Its as if the architect is asking the same $20,000 per non-custom home that he might charge for a custom home, and for some reason people don't have another choice. Maybe he's the only architect in town.
From the customer's perspective they had to overpay for what they wanted, and it wasn't even designed with them in mind: They can't even modify the blueprints. Maybe the architect isn't acting immorally, but the customers would be better off to band together, pool their own architectural knowledge, and come up with a design they could all use for free and modify to their own tastes. Heck, they might even hire The Architect to make those modifications for them if he was willing to charge a reasonable rate.
This isn't communism (big or little c), and noone is saying that its wrong to be paid for programming, just that closed source is a bad deal for the customer, it's like a trap you pay to get caught in. If you're going to set up incentives for creating something you should try to avoid getting trapped by the very product you paid (perhaps indirectly or after the fact) to create. And it sounds like the EU is wising up to the fact that if they're blowing billions on software a year, maybe they should actually *get* something for it besides the short-term functionality.
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, that's the architect's concern -- not his customers'. In a capitalist society, each person must provide for their own lifestyle. It is not the responsibility of the government to support the software industry. The government, like a business, needs software to perform various functions. And like a business, it must make choices that are in its best interest.
If each government in the EU agrees to join this collective commons and share software with each other, then who pays for what will balance itself out. One may supply software for budgeting; another writes software for distributing welfare; and so on.
True, this will decrease the market for custom software firms, but it will increase the market for custom software developers. In the end it may be a wash, with the added bonus that the governments -- and thus the EU citizens -- are better off. I don't see where the moral argument comes into play, but let's address that anyway.
Now the free software advocates claim this second method is immoral and unethical. But I have to ask why?
First, I'd ask why you assume that "the free software advocates" -- which seems to imply all or a majority -- "claim this second method is immoral and unethical." I'm a free software advocate, and I don't see any moral or ethical problem with commercial software. Capitalism lets the market decide. If there weren't companies that felt they were deriving advantages from using free software, it wouldn't survive. Clearly, people want free software, there are developers willing to create it, and there are even some companies willing to pay for it.
Where some people, including Bill Gates, raise an issue is with governments declaring that they will focus on using free software or open source. They claim that it is improper for a publicly-funded institution to discriminate about what type of software they will use. However, this isn't discrimination but merely choice. Most companies want to use well-written software that meets their business needs rather than something buggy that barely satisfies their goals [this is not a comparison of free vs. proprietary software]. It's another business decision. If a government decides that proprietary software doesn't meet their needs, what's the problem?
This striving for awards is a large part of what makes this country great. . . . If instead you get everything handed to you without any effort, you become lazy.
I didn't say all rewards are bad. I said that many people tend to do things only when they expect a reward. There certainly is altruism in the world -- I just wish there was a lot more of it.
But I don't see very many people advocating that all roads should be cleaned for free, and that anybody who wants to be a paid Janitor is immoral and evil.
And I don't see the majority of free software people advocating that all software "should" be free, as that implies forcing the freedom by banning all proprietary software. Similarly, I haven't seen anyone saying paid software developers are immoral. I certainly wouldn't claim that, being one myself.
I believe that if this goes over in the EU, the governments will end up hiring a lot of developers to create software that will be shared among the governments. How is that any different than hiring a bunch of trash collectors and sharing any new learning that comes out of that?
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:1)
I bet you the architects of those plans are going to be well paid, and well monitored--"No, Kameraden, joo kannicht go tafelink im Amerika..."
Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of EU money is spent on letting EU members work together in european projects. Open source is an excellent way to cooperate internationally. Even if it's just for drowning...
License don't matter (Score:1, Interesting)
So maybe now evan our gov will rethink... (Score:1)
Love quote from ZD page (Score:4, Insightful)
"The so-called (Free Software Foundation)... says that these other countries other than the US should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialise that software," said Gates.
Well, umm, no shit BillG. As a government, would you spend your miney on a company in another country for proprietary software for internal matters, or put the money in developing better GPL/FSF type of software (where there is already base). So yes, the GPL keeps money (and code) out of your pocket.
By the way billy, nice job on the DeToqueville (whatever) essay. You didnt pay much for it, did you?
Or better yet, some quotes from the study (Score:4, Informative)
A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Is anyone worried about this tendency within the EU towards standardization and centralization? I mean, the French definitely want things back as they were in 1680, or thereabouts, with France in control of the continent. Does anyone think it's time for Europe to acquire a Bureau of Sabotage [nmt.edu]?
Re:A few thoughts (Score:1)
Can't argue with that one. Guaranteed to piss off every Euro-type - an American with a "You socialists don't know jack shit" attitude.
2. Is anyone worried about this tendency within the EU towards standardization and centralization?
Harmonization of labelling, consumer protection, etc is kind of necessary in a single market. Centralization? Show me one example of a governmental organization which doesn't see centralization as the route to Nirvana.
Actually, compared with the British government (the permanent government - not the elected clowns who get to occasionally sneak one past the civil service), the EU can look like a devolutionists dream sometimes...
--Ng
Re:A few thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill didn't say that to the Europeans (I'd expect Bill is clever enough to avoid making such a mistake). Rather, he said it to leaders of developing countries. The quote is from a conference [zdnet.co.uk] in April.
I believe standardization and centralization are not only good but necessary for the future of Europeans.
Why only France? It seems to me that Germany also has a lot of influence. And even for the smaller countries, being in the EU gives them more control on their future, not less.
4 out of 5 software professionals agree that... (Score:1)
Shaking my head (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is definitely not paradise, but they have a fairly good record of not blowing too much money on things which the tax payers have to foot, and OSS makes a lot of sense for me as a tax payer(cost), me as a citizen(the source code) and me as a programmer(the development stays here in Europe and not in Redmond).
The person who asked which country will pay for this: They will obviously have to work some agreement out on sharing of costs, but I see that being a lot easier to get through the various parliments than explaining that our tax money goes to a company in Washington State.
Re:Shaking my head (Score:1)
Yeah, except for that 50% of the EU's budget goes to 2% of the EU population (the farmers).
Thus we get the great benefits of investing tax money in raising food prices for our citizens, while at the same time preventing third world countries (and others) from selling us (cheaper due to lower labour costs) their crops.
Re:Shaking my head (Score:2)
OK, Europe is not communist, but socialist. The various center-leftist socialist parties pretty much rule over Europe..
And fascism, right-wing neo-nazism, and such is on the rise in Europe - has been for a while.
And the French are bloody incompetent idiots - that's a no-brainer. And spending most of the EU budget to pay the French farmers. I eagerly await the shit-wars of French vs. Polish farmers - You can't imagine the amount of shit the French can drive on the EU Parliament house stairs..
No, the EU parliaments and cabinets definitely don't have a good record on using the tax-money wisely. Do You follow the news? How about the Italian budget? The French budget (and broken promises)? Even Germany has trouble keeping spending down when they lower the taxes (not that lowering the taxes is bad, but spending should go down as well).
However, on footing the bill of OSS developed in the future for the purposes proposed in the study, those bureaous that need software will pay. Whether proprietary or open source makes no difference in who pays, just that in time there should be a pool of software available which can be customized for the purposes of various bureaus instead of commissioning new, proprietary software written from scratch every time. I think it should lower costs for every party later on - it's the same as with any kind of software re-use (modularization, componentatization, and so on) done a little differently. And, as currently the software is written by hundreds or thousands of private companies which don't share source between eachother, even if the same companies continued to work on the programs required, having a source pool should speed up the development and thus make it a little cheaper.
Disclmaier: as a European I have all the rights to make fun of Europe and Europeans. But I still reserve the right to make fun of Americans, too
Re:Shaking my head (Score:2)
Re:Shaking my head (Score:2)
Remember that whatever happens, the pound, the mile, and the pint stay. (I don't remember the exact words, but that was the promise of the prime minister of UK some years ago.)
I would agree about the pint.
You are confused, a lot. (Score:1)
As for left of centre
Facts, please.
It is great that this kind of initiative is being brought through even it is only words. It shows people who would like to change that they won't be alone if they do. Compare this to the Tony Blair/Bill Gates love in that occurs here one a year.
your own stereotypes (Score:1)
people complaining about other people's stereotypes should be more careful about throwing around their own.
I do agree with the point you make though.
Roland
Re:Shaking my head (Score:2)
Also, the only reason some of us are American is that we were born here.
Several thoughts . . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
there is a LOT of bespoke software running in UK government departments, and a lot of it was developed by third parties. Consultancies involved in this work have generally retained the IP to the work and in many cases have reused code, templates, and skills elsewhere for profit.
Nothing wrong with this in principle. The government doesn't really want to be in the software development business so it should be keen for others to reuse work as widely as possible. The larger the pool of users of a piece of code the more likely the govt will get some benefit back. The downside has been that not only does the govt pay through the nose for the initial development, they also pay a premium for future upgrades because they are now a captive user.
Avoiding this pain far outweighs the possible profit that could be made from retaining IP and selling to the highest bidder. (I've not seen many success stories coming out of Qinetiq which I believe is the UK agency responsible for commercialising apps that the govt owns. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one!)
Second off
The UK civil service is a passionate defender of the UK national interest. Trouble is that they often narrow the definition down to the interest of UK companies and do things that penalise UK citizens. There is a possibility that someone unaccountable will make an decision that using common apps across Europe will disadvantage UK software developers who will have to compete for govt business with equally skilled Europeans. It is also possible that someone will decide that the UK should be closely tied to US interests and that Microsoft is the only platform to work with.
The same debate has been heard many times on a wide range of issues such as banking law, European air traffic control, and even common weapons across the armies.
THE GOOD NEWS is that Open Source has the potential to be a different debate. The first government to develop or mandate sharable code has the best chance of establishing a standard for whatever app it is and therefore will avoid some later redevelopment costs. By opening the source code to scrutiny they also get the chance to check that the code does what they want it to do and nothing more. Less chance of hidden back doors, spyware etc.
And finally, it seems to me the big question is the ease or difficulty of identifying components which are truly sharable. Has anyone got any comparisons with major multi nationals that have tried to do this across their divisions?
Re:Several thoughts . . . . (Score:1)
QinetiQ is the new name of DERA (the Defence Establishment Research Agency) (and don't get me started on the waste of money on name changes)