That the article discusses open source and not free software is entirely beyond my control. ;)
I'll leave it with you to analyse, I'll simply say that I think Hanafin has it all bass-ackwards. It would be interesting to hear what the government "looked into", and how they went about it. I hope they didn't ask the LGCSB for advice...
If this hasn't been posted on Linux.ie, might be a good idea to pass it on. I'm not subscribed to that list.
adam
Open source 'too costly' for Irish e-gov Thursday, April 29 2004 by Matthew Clark
http://beecher.ie/pheed/?ndgcqk
E-government in Ireland will be built using open standards technology, which may not be open source software such as Linux.
That's according to Mary Hanafin, Ireland's Minister for State with responsibility for the Information Society, who was speaking at the Irish Software Association's 16th annual conference, sponsored by Microsoft, O'Donnell Sweeney and ACT Venture Capital. At the event, Minister Hanafin gave a brief overview of the state of Ireland's e-government plans and said that an update to the government's ICT strategy document "New Connections" would be published before May.
"The use of open standards is critical to the government's plans," she said. "But it is important to remember that open standards are not the same as open source." Minister Hanafin indicated that Ireland's e-government system, once fully constructed, needs to last for several decades and must therefore be upgradeable. "Using open standards gives us that option."
She added that the government had looked into the long-term cost of various architectures and had determined that using only open source software could, in the long run, be more expensive. "The long-term cost of open source may outweigh the short term savings," she said.
Open standards software products are designed to be interoperable with software from other manufacturers, but can be proprietary technologies. Companies like IBM and Microsoft -- huge advocates for strong intellectual property law and by extention proprietary software -- are supporters of open standards, particularly Web Services architectures. The pair, along with BEA Systems and Verisign, even founded the Web Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I), which promotes the technology.
Microsoft -- perhaps the staunchest supporter of proprietary software -- recently announced the release of WSE (Web Services Enhancements) 2.0 to give software developers support for Web Services specifications, including WS-Security, WS-Routing, WS-Addressing, WS-ReliableMessaging and WS-Attachments.
The open source software movement, meanwhile, is not focused on pushing common technical standards, although many in the movement support such initiatives. Open source backers aim to create a market where software code is open to development and modification, which can in some instances undermine interoperability.
The question over open source or open standards in Irish e-government is especially pertinent now that work on Ireland's long-awaited Public Services Broker has commenced after BearingPoint won the contract. When completed, the Public Services Broker -- which is also now called reachservices -- will serve as a kind of central nervous system for Irish e-government services, linking practically all government departments and agencies so that information on citizens can be shared.
Minister Hanafin said on Thursday that phase one of the PSB should be completed by June 2004.
_______________________________________ Help Dahamsta Find His Wheel(s)! http://beecher.ie/play/otto-vonted.htm
Adam, On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 23:49, adam beecher wrote:
That the article discusses open source and not free software is entirely beyond my control. ;)
I'll leave it with you to analyse, I'll simply say that I think Hanafin has it all bass-ackwards. It would be interesting to hear what the government "looked into", and how they went about it. I hope they didn't ask the LGCSB for advice...
I'm not sure if she's incorrect
"The use of open standards is critical to the government's plans," she said.
At last the government is getting it right.
"But it is important to remember that open standards are not the same as open source."
Which is quite true.
once fully constructed, needs to last for several decades and must therefore be upgradeable. "Using open standards gives us that option."
Again a true statement
She added that the government had looked into the long-term cost of various architectures and had determined that using only open source software could, in the long run, be more expensive. "The long-term cost of open source may outweigh the short term savings," she said.
Could be...getting shaky here. I'd like to see the quotes.
Open standards software products are designed to be interoperable with software from other manufacturers, but can be proprietary technologies. Companies like IBM and Microsoft -- huge advocates for strong intellectual property law and by extention proprietary software -- are supporters of open standards, particularly Web Services architectures. The pair, along with BEA Systems and Verisign, even founded the Web Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I), which promotes the technology.
WS-I technology is only available royalty-free to other WS-I members. The WS-I sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately they're not for open standards, just shared standards amongst a closed group.
http://www.ws-i.org/docs/Membership/20030715.WS-IIPRAgreementv3.pdf page 5 section 2 b (1)
So it's not even open standards, as I understand open standards to be.
The open source software movement, meanwhile, is not focused on pushing common technical standards, although many in the movement support such initiatives. Open source backers aim to create a market where software code is open to development and modification, which can in some instances undermine interoperability.
Um.....kinda true, but not true at the same time. This is a broad statement like "all Irishmen are drunk", which makes the statement pretty useless.
The question over open source or open standards in Irish e-government is especially pertinent now that work on Ireland's long-awaited Public Services Broker has commenced after BearingPoint won the contract. When completed, the Public Services Broker -- which is also now called reachservices -- will serve as a kind of central nervous system for Irish e-government services, linking practically all government departments and agencies so that information on citizens can be shared.
Blah, blah...I don't really care... They can start out with closed source software but if they use true open standards (i.e. not WS-I) they have no barrier to move to OSS or FS in our case. We then just have to make a stronger case for the adoption of FS, or better still get the consultant who advises the Minister drunk :)
There's nothing outrageous in this statement except the claim that the WS-I promote open standards. I suggest we don't get offended by the possible perception of an insult to the FOSS community and simply point out that the WS-I do not produce open standards like the W3C etc...
Aidan Delaney wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 23:49, adam beecher wrote:
[snip]
The question over open source or open standards in Irish e-government is especially pertinent now that work on Ireland's long-awaited Public Services Broker has commenced after BearingPoint won the contract. When completed, the Public Services Broker -- which is also now called reachservices -- will serve as a kind of central nervous system for Irish e-government services, linking practically all government departments and agencies so that information on citizens can be shared.
Blah, blah...I don't really care... They can start out with closed source software but if they use true open standards (i.e. not WS-I) they have no barrier to move to OSS or FS in our case. We then just have to make a stronger case for the adoption of FS, or better still get the consultant who advises the Minister drunk :)
There's nothing outrageous in this statement except the claim that the WS-I promote open standards. I suggest we don't get offended by the possible perception of an insult to the FOSS community and simply point out that the WS-I do not produce open standards like the W3C etc...
The key point which I think needs to amplified is: just as there is an important difference between "open source" and "shared source", so there is an important difference between "open standards" and "shared standards".
Open source grants the permissions (and the practical access) to use; copy; modify; and redistribute a program without restriction.
Similarly, the real test of an open standard is whether it too allows the data originator the permission (and the practical possibility) to subsequently access, copy, modify and redistribute their own data, in whatever way and on whatever systems they wish.
This is a higely different thing from merely publishing a standard, but limiting its use -- either by licensing conditions; or patenting; or tying to a particular architecture.
"Open Source" has the Open Source Definition, and the authority of the term's instigators to defend it.
Some similar landmark definition, with committed defenders, is needed to fight for the meaning of the words "Open Standard".