What do you think: should all government software be open source?
-
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
-
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?
I believe yes but they are going to say something about national security. Even though all the proprietary software they used gets hacked and has leaks anyway oof
-
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?
Firstly do you mean software that the government uses, or that the government make? What about if they hire an external company to make it, which is pretty much what they always do?
I don’t think there is any need. It wouldn’t solve any problem or make anyone safer.
-
A few references:
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for usage, modification from its original design, and publication of their version (fork) back to the community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge.
The term open source refers to something people can modify and share because its design is publicly accessible.
https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source
having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
I haven't read any open source licenses, so it's possible you are correct in some technical sense, but that is not what people mean when they use the term open source.
Clearly the OP was using the common definition, or most of the post wouldn't make any sense.
The only one of your sources that directly contradicts what I am claiming is the Wikipedia line about the source being publicly available. But that is inaccurate. All the major open source licenses require source code be available to anyone who has access to the executable form of the software - not the public in general. So, if some FOSS software is available to download on the Internet without any restriction on its access, then so must the source code. Most FOSS software is distributed this way.
However, if you write software under an open source license, you are not required to share that software with anyone. The license requires you to distribute the source ALONG WITH the software. But it doesn't require you to make the software freely available to everyone, or anyone.
Tying back to my original point, which has been derailed by myriad people who refuse to read before thinking they know things, I was saying that we don't need exceptions for military software because it can be licensed as open source without that code being handed over to our enemies. But requiring it to be open source would, for example, preclude the DoD from building kill switches into the F-35s that they sell to our allies, because they'd be required to share the design of the plane's control systems along with the product - again, only to the people who receive a copy of the product - not to the public at large.
-
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.
-
Reads like AI
Yeah, no replies here and a lot of posts
-
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?
Couldn't people look through the code for exploits?
-
Couldn't people look through the code for exploits?
Yes, that is a very good thing.
It would mean that we a have a lot more people who can find exploits, report them and repair them.
Sure, some would find exploits and use them, but you would have more people finding and fixing them
-
I believe yes but they are going to say something about national security. Even though all the proprietary software they used gets hacked and has leaks anyway oof
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’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?
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.
-
Firstly do you mean software that the government uses, or that the government make? What about if they hire an external company to make it, which is pretty much what they always do?
I don’t think there is any need. It wouldn’t solve any problem or make anyone safer.
Even if an external company makes it, they can add an open source mandate if they want. The US DoD is starting to mandate the usage of open standards for their contractors to increase inter compatibility and ability to extend those systems.
Open source software has some value like making it easier for analysts to find security issues and the act of open sourcing software usually leads organisations to raise the quality because they don't want to be ashamed of the code. Plus imagine the clout gained by a dev who got a bug fix merged in that millions of citizens get to use.
