61–70 of 110 posts
It is completely contrary to the notion of an open and free society that the government is permitted to spend taxed dollars developing anything meant for domestic use in secret, much less it being (more or less) the default policy. Looking at the exemptions carved out of this rule (assuming this source is accurate), this looks more like it is codifying the secret nature of government operations than it is opening up…
I think some just let irrational hatred make them believe inane fairy tales.
It is completely contrary to the notion of an open and free society that the government is permitted to spend taxed dollars developing anything meant for domestic use in secret, much less it being (more or less) the default policy. Looking at the exemptions carved out of this rule (assuming this source is accurate), this looks more like it is codifying the secret nature of government operations than it is opening up…
How exactly is I "contrary to th notion of an open a d free society." I think that's just nonsense. And you think this could only be good if it leads to the government failing and a failed government obviously leads to world peace? I think some just let irrational hatred make them believe inane fairy tales.
Do you think that this is a reasonable belief?
If so, then it logically and obviously follows both that 1) development of products by the government (to the extent that this is even the reasonable purview of information age government at all) need to be conducted in a profoundly public way and that 2) a failure to do this will result in a properly disaffected populace and shortened moral stature on the part of the government.
It is no fairy tale to suggest that secrecy in government is a substantial part of the formula of government failure more generally. The only assertion I'm making that might not yet be in evidence is that, amidst the information age, this aspect of good government is more important and that its effects will be realized far more quickly.
It seems like they've cut a wide swath for (probably) exempting the most interesting of the software that could have been developed in the open. > Applicable exceptions are as follows: > The release of the item is restricted by another statute or regulation, such as the Export Administration Regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, or the laws and regulations governing classified information; > The…
The first two look reasonable, but after that it goes downhill. "The release of the item would create an identifiable risk to the stability, security, or integrity of the agency’s systems or personnel" means "I don't feel like it and you can't make me."
So for example, my local council wants to purchase software to help track customer feedback from dozens of sources (web sites, phone ins etc). Sounds perfect for a web era, message queue based project.
But my council is only interested in meeting its fiduciary duty in buying software that already exists, and has been proven to do the job required. Speculative development is out - even though pretty much everyone of 430+ councils, parishes, towns etc of the U.K. Will want something similar in the next few years.
No one is willing to stump up the cash to start the open source alternative.
It's a tragedy of the not commons.
I think there ought to be solutions in some kind of development bonds or other financing arrangements - but it's not clear how.
It seems like they've cut a wide swath for (probably) exempting the most interesting of the software that could have been developed in the open. > Applicable exceptions are as follows: > The release of the item is restricted by another statute or regulation, such as the Export Administration Regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, or the laws and regulations governing classified information; > The…
The important thing is that this changes the default. Instead of the default being closed and needing to justify open-sourcing something, the default will be to open-source things and having to justify keeping something closed. That's huge.