I’ve been thinking about transparency and security in the public sector. Do you think all government software and platforms should be open source?
Some countries have already made progress in this area:
- Estonia: digital government services with open and auditable APIs.
- United Kingdom: several open source government projects and systems published on GitHub.
- France and Canada: policies encouraging the use of free and open source software in public agencies.
Possible benefits:
- Full transparency: anyone can audit the code, ensuring there is no corruption, hidden flaws, or unauthorized data collection.
- Enhanced security: public reviews help identify vulnerabilities quickly.
- Cost reduction: less dependency on private vendors and lower spending on proprietary licenses.
- Flexibility and innovation: public agencies can adapt systems to their needs without relying on external solutions.
Possible challenges:
- Maintenance and updating of complex systems.
- Protecting sensitive data without compromising citizen privacy.
- Political or bureaucratic resistance to opening the code.
Do you think this could be viable in the governments of your countries? How could we start making this a reality globally?
Public money, public code.
Its really that simple
deleted by creator
Yes, I think all
governmentsoftware should be FOSS.(Ok, ok. Not all. I don’t think it should be mandatory to distribute software. But if you do distribute software, I think the source code should be required to come with it and there shouldn’t be any intellectual property restrictions on modifying it or distributing it, with or without modifications so long as you include the source code. Aside from that, distributing versions with malware included without sufficiently advertising that fact should be considered some sort of fraud or vandalism.)
But I’m under no illusion that there’s any likelihood of that happening any time in my lifetime. One can hope, though.
Of your “possible challenges”, the first two are complete fiction. FOSS would make it easier to properly maintain and update systems, complex or otherwise. And databases and code are two different things. Beyond that, I’ll say that distributing software only in compiled form doesn’t make anything more secure or hide anything about how the code works.
Edit: Oh, I also think a right to attribution is a good thing. It can be done poorly. (Like some of the earlier BSD licenses that would result in pages and pages of attribution for a single code project.) But done well, I think it’s a worthwhile thing.
Yes. Public money public code and all that.
However…
For security reasons, I wouldn’t feel comfortable if every one who wanted to could just contribute to it. It would need to be a closed developer group with security clearance. We can all look at what they’re doing, but we can’t insert our own patch commit requests to them ad nauseaum.
That’s entirely possible in the existing open source model with things like CODEOWNERS in github. I think it would work well for this concern.
Public money, public code.
deleted by creator
Public funds spent on anything that generates something that could be considered “intellectual property” should be public domain. Beyond software my first thought is pharmaceutical and general medical research.
Ken Thompson’s nightmare scenario was solved by a couple people who were enjoying their hobby in their free time
Could you elaborate further, please? I didn’t found anything about this story
deleted by creator
Do you mean software created by the government, or simply used by the government?
In the US, I believe the standard is that the software would be public domain if it’s an official government publication.
I agree, all software developed or used by governments should be open-source.
There might be few cases where there is a legitimate reason for it not to be open source (no open source software available, need a proprietary software for running old legacy equipment …). In this case the decision should be voted on and the arguments exposed publicly.
Some, but probably not all. Seems like it would be a bad move to open-source all military software.
Why? Open source only requires sharing the source when sharing the software. No distribution of software - no distribution of source. But if they are gonna sell software to other militaries or civilian contractors, we have a right to know what they’re selling.
And no, hiding your code doesn’t generally make your software more secure.
It just seems like a bad tactic. For example, if the US gives Ukraine some software that helps them fight Russia, it’s likely tactically advantageous (to Ukraine) if Russia doesn’t have the source code.
Of course, it doesn’t mean Russia couldn’t do some reverse engineering to some extent. But that takes time, and likely wouldn’t be as complete/thorough as just handing them the source code.
If the DoD gives some ooen source software to Ukraine they are required to give the source code to Ukraine - not to Russia.
Trying to understand what you’re saying: how is that open source then? It sounds like you’re saying giving the source to Ukraine only would suffice.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Go read the GPL and you’ll see that’s what it says too.
You’re confusing GPL with open source. Not all open source software is GPL.
The general discussion in this thread is if source code to government software should be publicly available. Not if government software should adopt GPL.
Its not just GPL. MPL, BSD work this way as well. And the original post refers to open source, not “code available to all”. Come back with a commonly used open source license that enforces what you’re describing and maybe you’ll have a point. Otherwise, why are we arguing about things that can just be looked up?
It’s generally not a good idea to make military technology accessible to the enemy.
So you didn’t read my comment before replying?
that could be solved by encrypted military plugins/addons that have their own security measures
Why would it be more difficult to maintain and update a complex system?
They don’t have to accept outsider contributions on their mainline nor employ less people to work on it.
Removed by mod
This is due to a simple mental hang up people have.
They want to blame/punish someone for the failure.
In an open source project, there isn’t really any one you can fine, GPL clearly states that the software is provided without warranty.
If you hire a company to make a program for you, you pay them to not only build the program for you, but to also accept liability for errors.
And that is often far more important to management than if the code is open
I don’t have a source, some looking will find it, but NASA used to have to be in the public domain. Now they partner, and the partner gets the patents. I know the Apollo soyez mating hardware was public domain, and apas docking is still.
I also seem to remember that research paid for by the USA, used to have to stay public.
I don’t have a source to quote, just memory.
There really is no good reason for not being open source.
Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, perhaps? (Archived)
OP, what do you mean by the following two challenges
- Maintenance and updating of complex systems.
- Protecting sensitive data without compromising citizen privacy.
Reads like AI
Yeah, no replies here and a lot of posts
yeah i think all government software available to the public should be free and open source.
Any even partially publicly funded government code should be open sourced, just like the new rules for public funding and publishing of scientific research. If people actually paid attention this would crush my former local government department.
