There are many other people who have written about this, but I now have to agree with them. Governments, to be fiscally responsible, should have to use, unless otherwise impossible, open source software in place of proprietory software. At the very least, they should have to evaluate open source possibilities before looking at closed source applications.
Why am I saying this? Because, currently, I work for a government office and I see where my tax money is going and it is going to Microsoft.
Apparently, in the Ontario government, each department has an IT department that backs it up. These IT departments are responsible for providing the software applications that power their respective departments and/or ministries. These software apps may be used internally or externally by the general public. The thing is that, in my department at least, a fair number of these applications have all been created using Microsoft technology, namely ASP3.0.
Now granted, ASP is free. Or at least that is what Microsoft would have you believe. In order to get ASP you must first own a server OS — Windows NT, Windows 2000 Server, or Windows 2003 Server. Once you acquire the OS you have free access to ASP. Now logically this means that there are a whole bunch of government applications that are running on top of Microsoft operating system. Operating Systems that have, time and time again, proven themselves to be insecure and prone to security attacks of one sort or another. Should government websites not be amongst some of the most secure servers around? And yet they are running Microsoft.
Beyond the security issue there is also the issue of money. It is my tax money that pays for all this proprietory technology. If a department wants to upgrade all 2000 workstations to Windows XP, it is my tax money that has to pay for that. So with windows XP you pay about $200 and all you get is an OS. With Red Hat Desktop, for about $70USD, I get a full OS plus support plus a full boat load of applications. Basically, I get a fully working development environment for all of $70. From a financial stand point, which makes more sense to you? Oh, in addition, if any of that software just doesn’t quite fit in, I can always go in a modify the code cause I have full access to the source. Whereas, with closed source, if I need to change anything I am out of luck. And, the manufacturer could hide a backdoor in that closed source OS and I would never know about it. Now that is security!!!
The only question that remains is how to properly influence governments to adopt open source software? This I do not have an answer to. But it is a question that we need to address. Can you image if, during the next election campaign, one of the major issues that decided who got elected was a politician’s willingness to adopt open source software? That would be progress. If the goal of today’s governments is for increased transparency, should that not also extend to the software they use to power that government? I think so.