Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Parliamentary Committee Pushes for Open Source Friendly Policy

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the wouldn't-it-be-nice? dept.

Government 44

Qedward writes with this except from Computerworld UK: "Germany should change a law to enable public administrations to make their software available as free and open source, a German parliamentary committee has advised. German public administrations currently are not allowed to give away goods, including software, said Jimmy Schulz, a member of Parliament and chairman of the Interoperability, Standards and Free Software Project Group. The current law prohibits governments from being part of the development process in the free software community, he said. 'This is a clear disadvantage because it cuts off all benefits obtained from free software, such as being cost-efficient and state-of-the-art,' he said. Besides a recommendation that the government should explore whether the law can be changed for software, the group also called for the use of open standards in order to make sure that everybody can have access to important information, Schulz said. 'We also called for public administrations in general to make sure that new software is created as platform independent as possible,' he added. While the project group is not in favour of giving priority to one type of software over another, it said in its recommendation to the Parliament earlier this week that free and open source software could be a viable alternative to proprietary software." I think a fair rule is that, barring extraordinary and demonstrated need, all tax dollars for software should go only for the development of software for which source is available gratis to all taxpayers, and that secret-source software makers are free to change to fit this requirement any time they'd like to have their software considered for a bid.

cancel ×

44 comments

The peril of a good intention (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620633)

Believe it or not, the idea that the government shouldn't give away things has some noble reasoning to it. Not sure of the specific reasoning in Germany, but it might range from avoiding favoritism to the government getting value for the work it produced.

But like all things, it can lead itself to a less than well-meant outcome.

Re:The peril of a good intention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620793)

At least this first post in on topic. A bit pithy, but on topic.

Cant give it away then sell it (1)

mrcaseyj (902945) | about a year and a half ago | (#42621273)

If the government can't give it away then maybe auction it off. Don't auction off the copyright, just auction off a single copy. Then if it is GPL the goverment will have to fulfill its obligation and pay for what it got by posting the source code. Thus posting the source code for free will not be giving anything away, it will be paying a debt.

Re:The peril of a good intention (2)

rioki (1328185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42623833)

It is not about "giving" it away. The government can't make it available in 90% of the cases, period. Why, you ask. Because it is not allowed to interfere with the free market by also participating. So anything that not some super niche product, that technically a private entity could create, the government is not allowed to publish it. They are allowed to build software in house, if the software is not available or cheaper than buying it, but they are not allowed to act as software publisher. True, it is a weird logic, but that is the reasoning behind it.

Re:The peril of a good intention (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630361)

[...] it is not allowed to interfere with the free market by also participating [...]

A link to the relevant German law?

To date, I thought that was pretty unique to USA.

It is not about "giving" it away.

My reading is that it's precisely about that: gov't isn't allowed to give stuff away.

Though I live in Germany, I'm no legal expert and would appreciate a link to the relevant law.

LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620643)

No one really cares what you think timothy. Honest.

Re:LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620787)

You seem to care enough to reply.

Open source? In Germany? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620755)

Godwin law's won't allow that. Now suck my swastika shaped jew cock.

EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620777)

Looks like this is a good experiment to be done at the EU level, where they write a million page spec on everything, and create huge bureaucracies to enforce them. They can then flood all of Europe with bureaucrats to make sure that all software being used for government work is Open-Source.

In the US... (4, Interesting)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42620785)

In the USA, it is possible for public and governmental employees to not only contribute to open source software, but also to have that be part of their particular job.
.
ImageJ [wikipedia.org] is a public domain software package [wikipedia.org] developed at the NIH (National INstitute of Health) by Wayne Rasband.
.
NIST also has software that is publicly available, though not all of it is "public domain".
.
I don't know whether the "public domain" status is used because Gov't entities are not allowed to hold copyright on materials they develop; I know I've seen copyright labels on a lot of NASA products and images and animations. I strongly feel that products developed from our tax dollars ought to be available back to us and between/amongst different governmental departments so as to save us money and development costs.

Re:In the US... (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42620865)

NASA images are generally public domain [nasa.gov] ; that's why there's a huge pile of them on Wikipedia [wikimedia.org] , among other places. There are a few exceptions for stuff created by third-party contractors, though; depending on the terms of the contract, the copyrights might be owned by the contractor. The NASA logo itself is also not in the public domain, so you can't sell knockoff NASA tshirts.

Re:In the US... (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42620899)

NASA also makes some of its software available as open source.

Oooh! I know this one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42621219)

If only NASA, thanks to Donald Becker, had a BEOWULF CLUSTER OF THESE!

Re:In the US... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42621291)

The NASA logo itself is also not in the public domain, so you can't sell knockoff NASA tshirts.

I'm pretty sure the NASA logo is a trademark, so for making T-Shirts it shouldn't matter at all whether it is in the public domain. You'd still infringe on the trademark.

Re:In the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42621435)

Yes, I am fairly certain that the copyright for the NASA logo is in the public domain (being a governmental body they are not allowed to create copyrighted works).

However, the government is still allowed to hold trademark over their logos (and they should, else corps could legally claim to be government agencies).

Re:In the US... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620895)

Copy authored by government employees is the property of the U.S. Government, and is not subject, per se, to copyright law, though there are other laws that restrict the distribution and use of much of it. However, most of what is created by the government is created by contractors. They generally retain copyright and transfer only use rights to the government. We can (and in some times do) get unlimited rights, but the contractors generally extort us for that, as retaining the rights forces us to go back to them, for example, to maintain the code.

Re:In the US... (3, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42620959)

>I know I've seen copyright labels on a lot of NASA products and images and animations

A lot of those were tacked on by third parties.

There are a few culture thieves (publishers) that have been taking expired copyright/public domain stuff and tacking on a new copyright to it. As if this minimal sweat of the brow is enough to re-copyright.

--
BMO

Re:In the US... (3, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42621373)

There are a few culture thieves (publishers) that have been taking expired copyright/public domain stuff and tacking on a new copyright to it. As if this minimal sweat of the brow is enough to re-copyright.

Actually, it's only the part the publishers add that's copyrighted. If you take a public domain work, and only repackage it, it's actually not under copyright at all, only the repackaged part of it is. If they add a foreword or analysis, that too is copyrighted. But the public domain work is still in public domain and someone could take that work and republish it.

Of course, publishers don't want you knowing that... so they slap a "All rights reserved. Copyright 2013 blah blah blah" hopin gyou assume it's the entire thing and not whatever value add they put on.

Otherwise stuff like Project Gutenberg really would have a hard time adding new content as the editions they often use are technically under copyright (because finding an old enough edition is difficult).

Re:In the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42621093)

It depends...industry and gov do use open source. The license on the code would also dictate whether or not it could be used(assuming the developer is abiding by the code license). Whether the final product can be re-released into the community is a matter of whether the final product is restricted, such as in a mission critical or export restricted technology. Also, if the open sourced code license requires any applications developed from or integrated with it also become open sourced would limit its usage based on the same reasons as exposing proprietary code to those terms.

A quick google:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2011/government-acquisition-and-gpl.pdf [softwarefreedom.org]

FROST PiST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42620883)

th4t sorded, gawker At most thei8 parting 7000 USERS OF but many find it are She had taken it a break, if [tux.org]? Are you

Difficult proposition (0)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#42621283)

Requiring a government to "opensource" software is a nice but difficult proposition. The biggest problem I see is this: how can say a Western government justify giving stuff free to Al Qaeda or the Chinese? No, I'm not raising the Beware the Terrorists/Communists argument, simply stating the fact that opensourcing software means that EVERYBODY gets free access to the source, and that includes people outside the political entity. So effectively, you subsidize software development in other countries. Again, this is a great and altrusitic idea but one must also think of the political consequences of such a move.

Dont be Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42621609)

Idiots like you are a huge part of the problem, in your narrow minded idiocy yo assume that no one else can invent or steal things. Well they do both, and as Wikileaks has shown National Security means 'I am a politician or bureaucrat, you cant embaras me'.

I woyld say more but I would get very cross.

MFG, omb

Re:Difficult proposition (2)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42622141)

"Requiring a government to "opensource" software is a nice but difficult proposition."

No, it isn't.

"The biggest problem I see is this: how can say a Western government justify giving stuff free to Al Qaeda or the Chinese?"

Simple: they don't. That they can't avoid a third party from giving it away to Al Qaeda doesn't mean they themselves are giving it to Al Qaeda.

And even then, open source protects *the source code*, not the binaries. Take the GPL as an example: somebody should give you sources only after they give you binaries. Well, don't give such a third party access to the binaries unless they abide not to give them in turn to Al Qaeda. Done.

"So effectively, you subsidize software development in other countries."

That's true and an intended effect. But even if simple and readeable by everybody even if they didn't sell their soul to Mephistopheles (aka lawyers), it doesn't mean it isn't legaleese and once it's legaleese, you can always find ways to diverge from its first intent (i.e.: one thing is copyright, and a different thing export laws).

Re:Difficult proposition (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42623927)

Nit pick : the requirement to not give the binaries to Al Qaeda would not meed the OSI definition of Open Source software. You're not permitted to add stipulations on who receives sources or what they are used for. If Al Qaeda uses your software to make cluster bombs that drop live kittens packed with C4, that's fair game for Open Source licenses.

Re:Difficult proposition (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42629211)

"Nit pick : the requirement to not give the binaries to Al Qaeda would not meed the OSI definition of Open Source software."

Probably not. But then again, nitpicking, you don't put the "not for Al-Qaeda" clause in the same contract/license than the software's one and you will be probably in the bright side.

"You're not permitted to add stipulations on who receives sources or what they are used for."

But that's a stipulation on the limitations of the second party to third parties. As long as the second party abides and doesn't have the intention of dealing with third parties, you are in the safe.

"If Al Qaeda uses your software to make cluster bombs that drop live kittens packed with C4, that's fair game for Open Source licenses."

Which wouldn't be such a bad thing as it seems at first glance. Al-Qaeda members have probably drunk Coca-Cola or coffee at Starbucks, driven Fords and bought at 7-eleven without affecting the reputation of said companies. What would be the problem of Al-Qaeda terrorists using, say, Vim -or even worse, Emacs?

nothing difficult about it (0)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42622325)

simply stating the fact that opensourcing software means that EVERYBODY gets free access to the source, and that includes people outside the political entity

Yes, indeed, open sourcing means people "outside the political entity" can get free access to the source. One hopes that they will find it useful for learning something, understanding the benefits of sharing and cooperation, and generally improving their lot in life. Perhaps even you might understand these principles some day.

Re:nothing difficult about it (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635969)

I do understand these principles. For the record I'm against copyright and patents. But I know there are policital realities that make such a stand unfeasible.

Re:nothing difficult about it (1)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637765)

What "political reality"? Out of all the silly objections people have raised to FOSS, I have never heard that seriously used in parliament. You're creating an issue that simply hasn't existed before.

A Fair Rule (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42621369)

I think a fair rule is that, barring extraordinary and demonstrated need, all tax dollars for software should go only for the development of software for which source is available gratis to all taxpayers, and that secret-source software makers are free to change to fit this requirement any time they'd like to have their software considered for a bid.

Requiring this of software developed by the government makes a lot of sense. However the language "considered for a bid" suggests you want this to include all software vendors the government employs. While some software (voting machine) should always be open, need ALL software a government uses fit this requirement?

Re:A Fair Rule (3, Interesting)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42622201)

"While some software (voting machine) should always be open, need ALL software a government uses fit this requirement?"

A big resounding "YES!"

Please take the time to read any single open source license. Just to name the most famous two, BSD and GPL, please, read them.

Imagine we are talking about an ultrasecret software that makes Al Qaeda bosses piss their pants and all [My Beloved Country]'s enemies, past, present or future, surrender on the spot. "Oh, my God! we don't want this to be open source, do we?"

Well, do we? Now, answer a question to me: being such a software licensed under either GPL or BSD forces the government to give it away to anyone?

But then, imagine such a software is developed by a contractor and the government forces such a contractor to license it under GPL or BSD. Does such agreement force the contractor to give the software away to anybody else? Does it force the government to give it away to anybody else?

Just to state the obvious, if you answered "yes" to any of the questions on the paragraphs above, you really need to re-read the GPL and BSD licenses again.

Re:A Fair Rule (1)

balajeerc (1461659) | about a year and a half ago | (#42623841)

Can this fair rule reasonably be extended to engine designs of fighter jets produced by companies in other nations? Let's say Germany needed to buy F-16s. Shouldn't it insist that Lockheed-Martin make public detailed drawings and specs outlining the entire aircraft's design? Of course, the average taxpayer will have no use for it, but then again, the average tax payer will have no use for the source code running the webapp that helps him file his taxes either.

Re:A Fair Rule (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#42624089)

I daresay there are far more people who can audit and improve the web-app (and fix bugs that could land you in jail for unintentional tax fraud) than there are people who can improve the design of a fight jet engine.
And practically everyone who could improve the design of the fighter jet engine is already working for the manufacturer of a fighter jet.

So your analogy is incredibly flawed.

Data is not a good. So where's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42621869)

Content Mafia delusions at it again?

Then get a therapy!

Then the government will pay a lot more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42622163)

While it's nice to think that anything the gov't pays for should belong to the public, that doesn't necessarily work out like you expect.

Say you're developing software to determine the lowest fuel cost route for airplanes. Say it saves the user $1M/year.
The government needs it, so do, say, 9 airlines. Say it costs, in round numbers, about $5M to develop that software (15 work years, give or take). Should the government impose 5M in taxes on the population, then fund the full development cost, and release it to the public? Or should the government pay, say 500K, as would those 9 airline companies.

let's analyze this..
Scenario 1: Taxpayer pays $5M, Government saves $1M, Airlines save $9M among them. Airlines pay nothing for $9M advantage, Taxpayer gets a raw deal, paying 5M for 1M in return.

Scenario2: Taxpayer pays 500k, Govt saves $1M. Airlines each pay 500k, save $1M. Airlines get a 100% return on their investment (which is pretty good), taxpayers get 100% return on their investment too. Taxpayers aren't subsidizing and increasing profits for airline companies.

Yes, the numbers are contrived, but the point is this.. To get a piece of software the government can either pay for all of it or can share the development cost. In general, the government pays for all of it when it's something nobody other than the government needs (because there's nobody willing to share in the cost and benefit). But if it's something that everyone can use (whcih is the case for things like office software, etc), maybe sharing the development cost is a better way to go. It's generally a LOT cheaper for the taxpayer to buy a license for government use (only).

(this leaves out any arguments about lockin for future costs, transparency, etc.)

Re:Then the government will pay a lot more... (2)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42622369)

"Say you're developing software to determine the lowest fuel cost route for airplanes. Say it saves the user $1M/year.
The government needs it, so do, say, 9 airlines. Say it costs, in round numbers, about $5M to develop that software (15 work years, give or take). Should the government impose 5M in taxes on the population, then fund the full development cost, and release it to the public? Or should the government pay, say 500K, as would those 9 airline companies."

But you already answered your question! "the government needs it" It either makes a business case or not. You said the government saves a million a year, so it returns its expenditure in five years and above that it's net benefit.

Well, if it makes sense, it makes sense, what does it matter to the government who else benefits? (and that's even disregarding the case that those other 9 companies might be from its own country, thus giving them an edge that will return to the GDP and to the government itself in form of taxes -what do you think that made USA a world's leader but government effort specially after WWII?).

And your example hides an implicit (two indeed): that if the government doesn't develop it, others will do that will sell the software at a fair share of the cost to all the implied agents and without a hidden agenda. Well, the last 20~30 years demonstrates beyond all doubt that's not the case: most famous recent billionaires come from software world, and even Adam Smith 101 will tell you that's impossible under "invisible hand"-guided free market: closed source has effectively suffled wealth from the people to the hands of a few because once your hypothetical software development company has developed its software, it won't sell it for 500.000 to each of the nine companies plus the government: it'll sell it for the full 5 millions each, and the ten of them will buy it because -as I already stated at the beginning, it still makes economic sense for them.

And then, they'll use the free 45 millions they got out of the transaction to lobby the government to pass laws that ensure the company no other competitors will enter the market in the future.

less hostile (2)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42622199)

Current government policy is downright hostile, this change would make it less so. But I wouldn't characterize the resulting policy as "open source friendly"; at best it would make policy comparable to other European nations.

Whether this passes remains to be seen. This is just a committee proposal to study the issue; that might be a serious effort, or simply a way of railroading the idea. And industry in Germany is very powerful. They usually don't have to bother with inconveniences like bribery or lobbying, they just say what they want and get it.

Needed for public oversight (1)

redlemming (2676941) | about a year and a half ago | (#42622581)

All tax dollars for software should go only for the development of software for which source is available gratis to all taxpayers, and that secret-source software makers are free to change to fit this requirement any time they'd like to have their software considered for a bid.

Doing something along these lines is essential to have long term public oversight over government.

In fact, you need to go a little bit further, and have a requirement not just for the source to be available, but for it to be well-documented, and build-able to exactly produce the binaries being used. Otherwise you'll get people playing all kinds of games with the system, adhering to the letter of the law while massively violating the intent.

The "well-documented" concept would take some thought to define, but I'd imagine something reasonable and workable could be developed.

We don't necessarily need to make all source code created for any possible purpose open source as soon as it is created, however.

For some applications, such as source code running equipment that could reasonably be expected to be used in a legal case (e.g. security cameras, drug measurement tools, radar guns), the source should always be open. We might even extend this requirement to include firmware and hardware design details in addition to source code.

In some applications that are less time critical, the source might be held closed for ten years or so. A delay of this kind would provide a reasonable opportunity for businesses to have trade secrets for a limited time. Mechanisms could be set up to insure that the source would eventually be produced, including some sort of reward / penalty system.

For that matter, something like this is needed to have long term public oversight over businesses in general, not just those working with the government.

Then what about LiMux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42623267)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux

Munich does develop its own Linux distribution. GPL forces them to open source most of their work. I conclude that the news can not be entirely true..

Re:Then what about LiMux? (1)

rioki (1328185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42623877)

You miss the point. It is not about the German government not being able to release open source software. The law prohibits the government to enter into competition with private companies, no matter what terms the software is covered. I don't know about LiMux and how they resolved that, maybe employs can contribute to existing open source in limited scope, but not publish new projects.

Don't be too optimistic (1)

prefec2 (875483) | about a year and a half ago | (#42624573)

The proposal comes from a parliamentary committee. This means, it has not gone through a legislation process where lobbyists will sink it. The conservative party will sink it, because the idea supports liberal tendencies and the lobby says so, the liberal party will be against it, because it will hurt the established IT companies (or at least be a threat to them, and those might be part of their election force), the social-democrats will kill it, because the conservatives get an increase in votes out of their behavior and they want also more votes. The green party will love the idea, but are too small to push it forward alone. The socialists will like the idea, basically because the social-democrats are confused and want to sink the idea at first, then change their opinion only to look inconsequential and sink themselves. However, the socialists will not understand want this is really about. The pirate party will sill working on sinking themselves and not discussing the issue, as they have to flame about other pirates.

might be cost efective not state of the art (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42625021)

Look at how long it took Oracle Mysql to get Triggers and Sprocs compared to Oracle and comparing Gimp to PS there is no contest. Though not allowing government to contribute to OS where it make sense is a v bad idea.

Re:might be cost efective not state of the art (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year and a half ago | (#42626885)

Oracle MySQL is an awful example: the FLOSS version was always poorly maintained since Sun/Oracle want you to but the comercial version. The development process wan't open either.
If you want a good comparison of comercial vs open, pick Postgres.

Also, on the GIMP vs PS side: citation needed.

Re:might be cost efective not state of the art (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630807)

um i was comparing Oracle the RDBMS vs MySql - anyone who has used PS and GIMP professionally would agree with me.

"Software" is not goods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42633913)

More like information.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...