The issue becomes when things are developed with a mix of public and private money. I'm not saying we shouldn't tackle the issue, only that it can't be as simple as public money = public resource. If that were true, nearly all of us would be required to work for free, since we got the majority of our education through public funding.
Edit: It seems everyone ignored the generalization I was replying to. Yes, in terms of code it's actually relatively easy to require that a publicity funded project be open source and leave it at that. The business can decide if they want to write everything from scratch to protect their IP or if they want to open up existing code as a part of fulfilling/winning the contact.
In terms of other partially government funded projects, like the pharmaceutical example given, it's much more difficult to say how much of the process and result are thanks to public funding. That's really the only point I was trying to make, that it can get very hard to draw the line. With code, it can be relatively easy.
Your joke aside, which I thought was funny did remind me that as it happens, the Swiss do an amazing job in making things internationally accessible.
Take for example their spectrum management system that not only allows you to search for categories of users, handles kHz to MHz data entry, gives access to the legal provisions and then the legislation itself, does so in four languages.
This is the way it should be. Governments around the world have spent decades enriching big tech with public money, when they could have pooled their resources and built FOSS software that benefited everyone.
Same goes for science and everything else funded by tax payers.
Been contracting for the Swiss government for years, namely ASTRA. They have 0 concept of how that should happen. It's their IP, but they don't want to take it, host it, maintain it, or do anything else with it once the project is done.
Do they just expect others to foot the bill? Sure, free GitHub exists, but everything else? Open sourcing without maintenance is abandonware and usually useless.
In contrast, abandoned open source software can be picked up and updated by whomever gets paid to, where abandoned closed source software needs to be reimplemented from scratch at great expense to the tax payer.
Not only that, open source software can be adopted by the community (who already paid for the development through their taxes) for their own purposes. Consider for example the productivity impact on business that starts using tools that it cannot afford to develop itself.
Office things like document management, workflow management, accounting, but also tools used in the science community, transport and logistics, anything that government does is represented in some other way in society.
This is a big deal and I hope that it will reverberate across the globe and become the new normal.
Whilst we're at it, consider the impact of open data, where government datasets are available to the community.
I'll gladly upload my stuff into some repo they allow me to. I've inquired about it in the past - I wrote a piece of sw that fills a requirement hole left by a widely used SCADA tool - but they outright forbid it. That was about a year ago.
My point is less about open source and more about how they have no clue how to handle their IP even now. It's a nice gesture at best (at least currently. Maybe there's more on the way).
Whilst we’re at it, consider the impact of open data, where government datasets are available to the community.
That sounds like it would be pretty useful to get better quality statistical research papers (well, I guess quality would depend more upon the researcher), doable by people without corporate backing.
Step 2: governments, required by law, to fund FOSS projects in their tech stacks. Helped by organizations which trace project funding and lobbying to promote FOSS security by providing funding; a huge incentive to not insert malware
Step 3: coders are afforded dignity (UBI); given funds geared towards affording a maintenance team. Regardless of country of origin. Vital infrastructure is vital infrastructure. Talent is talent.
I support this move to Step 1
Where is the list of pauper gov'ts which force talent to get a job rather than be a talent and then maintain their projects with dignity!
Those jobs are mostly nonsense. Geared towards wasting our time building:
Open source will always be the best option, especially with a government supporting it! Imagine what government funding could do to accelerate improvements to Linux
I imagine that the company would have the burden of proof that any of these criteria are fulfilled.
Third-party rights most likely refers to the use of third-party libraries, where the source code for those isn't open source, and therefore can't be disclosed, since they aren't part of the government contract. Security concerns are probably things along the line of "Making this code open source would disclose classified information about our military capabilities" and such.
Switzerland are very good bureaucracy and I trust that they know how to make policies that actually stick.
I still think a good chunk of the code will be visible. You can have all the code up to the point where you call the proprietary function. Obviously you won't get to see what's inside that function but you can guess. Also, a lot of proprietary libraries have that functionality really well documented.
Yep, the swiss government. Complicated is probably the best word to describe it. We are a very decentralized country (which makes sense for a country that was founded as a coalition to fight the royals that oppressed its people, none of those partners want someone to rule them) so every canton (state) does a lot of things differently than the other ones.
But it is nice to see that after years of neglect they try to actually push digitalization by establishing common standards and systems.
Hopefully more governments will follow this. At the very least, the taxpayer should have the right for whatever software's source code that it funds development.
You'd think so, but the answer is no. They've employed companies like Microsoft, Oracle, etc. to write up the security handbooks that says proprietary software is more secure. Heck, even electronic voting systems in the US is closed-source.
Security by obscurity the 100% least effective security measure! Wait what? MS left the government knowingly vulnerable for years for the shareholders?! That's some good security right there!
Long version: I’m pretty sure; no. I believe that; tools used like apps would not be subject to FOIA.
I deal with public records requests at work… email, documents etc. sure thing, but I’m pretty sure that the AG would laugh at you requesting the source code for apps we use.
—-
I could only wish that we were mandated to use only open source software
If the people are paying for it through taxes, it shouldn't be contracted out to some company who lock further development behind their continued involvement.
I guess it's not convenient to have Microsoft and Apple scan your company images and employee emails. Even take screenshots automatically if they can get away with it.
Appearently other countries are fine with this, which surprises me much more.
I guess the corpo version of windows have these sort of things turned off? But ms can turn them on whenever they want.
Specifically I was referencing the recent Russian cyberattack on US government servers that were/are run by microsoft. The flaw was known about for years but no one did anything about it because profit.
There going to face a whole bunch of compatibility issues when dealing with other countries imho. However, i personally find this to be a good thing. Its at the very least a strike at the heart of big systems controlling the masses.
Nothing "recent" about Microsoft hacks, it's been happening for decades, the only difference is that the victim was you, now for a change, we have been made aware that Microsoft itself was hacked, but only because it impacted people outside Microsoft.
Microsoft was forced to reveal that it was hacked back in November 2023, and still hasn't managed to prove that their systems are not still compromised today in July 2024. Just so we're clear, their internal network was breached.
We also don't know if it started in November, or if that's just a convenient date because nobody externally has yet discovered evidence to show any different.
If the Lemmy repository was hacked and malicious code was added, people here would lose their shit. That's what hit Microsoft and the fact that it's only talked about in ICT professional circles is a good indication of just how bad this really is.
So, yeah, open source, open data, open governance, all of it.
I wonder how this will impact us infrastructure types. I am sure there must have been an exception to the rule at least once in my career but I can't recall any, code I have made for all governments has been open source and if you lost it somehow I would just email it.
My only concern would be the systems that my code runs on top of won't be willing to share. It is one thing to demand it from me, another to demand it from Siemens. Then you add in very low level code for individual devices such as VFDs
I guess the nightmare would be that PLC/DCS/VFD makers would basically be blacklisted and I would have to work around that fact.
My only concern would be the systems that my code runs on top of won’t be willing to share. It is one thing to demand it from me, another to demand it from Siemens. Then you add in very low level code for individual devices such as VFDs
I’m curious if this also applies to military or intelligence software. I’m guessing at the very least software embedded in weapons systems is not included. If I understood the article correctly there were some exemptions for security reasons.
The fact the code is open sourced is much less significant than the fact now the Swiss government will need to negotiate complete ownership of any software they commission.
That’s going to make things more expensive for them, and limit the vendors prepared to work with them.
No, that is counter intuitive. It may appear more expensive at first, but on the long run it is a lot more cheaper. It avoid vendor lock-in, recurring increase of dev costs and licensing and lots of other plagues of closed proprietary development like blackbox development and justification of hidden complexity as a driving factor on costs. I worked with legacy closed proprietary sw development and lock-in combined with legacy complexity made man-hour costs exorbitant. These are partially solved by open-sourcing, as kicking out a team and putting a new one is easier, but most importantly transparency as a driving factor on quality of development.
At least for ASTRA, for software developed in their projects that's already the case. Frameworks etc. used are not covered, but all source code for PLC and SCADA are theirs and you're required to hand over all code as part of documentation at the end. As a zip on a USB key, never to be looked at again.