Difference between revisions of "OSS:Brief"

From CSEP590TU
Jump to: navigation, search
(version 2)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== Title ==
 +
 +
In Consideration of Federal Policies for Open Source Software
 +
 +
 
== Members ==
 
== Members ==
  
Line 8: Line 13:
  
  
−
== Summary ==
+
== Motivation ==
 +
 
 +
In the recent 2-3 years, various national, regional and local governments across the world have proposed policies and legislation favouring open source software (OSS) over proprietary software. Some of these 90 initiatives have actually been approved. Munich, Germany is among the highest profile Microsoft defector, voting to move 14,000 city-owned PCs to OSS. China, South Korea and Japan are collaborating to develop OSS to replace proprietary OSes, with Japan contributing $8.6million. Various others are jumping on the band-wagon, seeing this as an opportunity to cut software costs or reduce their dependency on US-made software.
  
−
The government is in a unique position to aid open source software -- and open source software has the potential to help the government. We will examine whether the United States government should actively aid open source. We will also see if the government would benefit by using OSS, whether or not they wish to actively contribute to it. We will examine case studies of other countries' experiences, both those who funded OSS (China) and those who use it (France and Germany).
+
 
 +
== Goal ==
 +
The impetus of various OSS policies have lead us to investigate the rationale behind them, and question if the foreign governments' perceived benefits of OSS applies to the US. We divide the existing policies into two broad categories: government procurement of OSS, and government funding of research and development as relating to OSS. Through an objective assessment of the benefits and risks of government involvement, we hope to recommend if it is desirable for the Federal government to stipulate any form of OSS policy.
  
  
 
== Organization ==
 
== Organization ==
  
−
* Introduction (Matt)
+
*Introduction '''[Matt]'''
−
* Consideration of government funding of OSS (Ted)
+
**What is Open Source Software? (OSS)
−
* Case study of OSS funding: China (Kianwin)
+
**OSS policies among various governments
−
* Consideration of government adoption of OSS (Alexis/Anna)
+
**Reasons for considering OSS policies
−
* Case study of OSS adoption: France and/or Germany (Anna/Alexis)
+
***Limited marketing by non-profit entities
−
* Conclusion and integration of sections (Matt)
+
***Non-commercial societal benefits
 +
***Entrenched legacy systems
 +
 
 +
*Public Procurement
 +
**Business reasons for/against OSS '''[Alexis]'''
 +
***Total cost of ownership (TCO)
 +
***Security
 +
***Vendor independence
 +
**Societal reasons for/against OSS '''[Anna]'''
 +
***Permanence of public data
 +
***Externalizing software benefits for society
 +
**Reasons for/against policies '''[Anna]'''
 +
***Track record in regulation of high tech industries
 +
***Presence of market failure in OSS
 +
**Case studies '''[Alexis]'''
 +
***Local governments - Largo City, Texas Austin etc.
 +
***EU - Germany, France, UK etc.
 +
***Developing countries - Brazil, India, China etc.
 +
 
 +
*Research and Development
 +
**Foreign OSS policies' impact on US software industry '''[Kianwin]'''
 +
***Reduction of software imports
 +
***Development of indigeneous software industry
 +
***Alternative solution to piracy and IP infringements
 +
**Licensing terms for government research '''[Ted, Kianwin]'''
 +
***Commercialization of government-funded research
 +
***Spread of public goods at marginal cost
 +
***Restriction on GPL or 'viral' licenses
 +
**Case studies '''[Ted]'''
 +
***Local institutions - NASA, Sandia National Labs, NSA's SELinux
 +
***Europe: France, Germany
 +
***Asia: China, Japan, Korea
 +
 
 +
*Conclusion (and integration) '''[Matt]'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== Main References ==
 +
* [http://www.csis.org/tech/OpenSource/0408_ospolicies.pdf Table of Governments Considering OSS Policies & Legislation] by [http://www.csis.org/tech/OpenSource/ Center for Strategic and International Studies] (CSIS)
 +
 
 +
* [http://www.iosn.net/government/foss-government-primer/foss_gov_primer_v0_2.pdf FOSS Government & Policy Primer] by [http://www.iosn.net/ United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) International Open Source Network]
 +
 
 +
* [http://www.aei.brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=210 Government Policy toward Open Source Software] commissioned by [http://www.aei.brookings.org/ AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies]

Latest revision as of 07:56, 9 November 2004

Title

In Consideration of Federal Policies for Open Source Software


Members

  • Alexis O'Connor
  • Anna Reynoso
  • Kianwin Ong
  • Matt Ferlo
  • Ted Sander


Motivation

In the recent 2-3 years, various national, regional and local governments across the world have proposed policies and legislation favouring open source software (OSS) over proprietary software. Some of these 90 initiatives have actually been approved. Munich, Germany is among the highest profile Microsoft defector, voting to move 14,000 city-owned PCs to OSS. China, South Korea and Japan are collaborating to develop OSS to replace proprietary OSes, with Japan contributing $8.6million. Various others are jumping on the band-wagon, seeing this as an opportunity to cut software costs or reduce their dependency on US-made software.


Goal

The impetus of various OSS policies have lead us to investigate the rationale behind them, and question if the foreign governments' perceived benefits of OSS applies to the US. We divide the existing policies into two broad categories: government procurement of OSS, and government funding of research and development as relating to OSS. Through an objective assessment of the benefits and risks of government involvement, we hope to recommend if it is desirable for the Federal government to stipulate any form of OSS policy.


Organization

  • Introduction [Matt]
    • What is Open Source Software? (OSS)
    • OSS policies among various governments
    • Reasons for considering OSS policies
      • Limited marketing by non-profit entities
      • Non-commercial societal benefits
      • Entrenched legacy systems
  • Public Procurement
    • Business reasons for/against OSS [Alexis]
      • Total cost of ownership (TCO)
      • Security
      • Vendor independence
    • Societal reasons for/against OSS [Anna]
      • Permanence of public data
      • Externalizing software benefits for society
    • Reasons for/against policies [Anna]
      • Track record in regulation of high tech industries
      • Presence of market failure in OSS
    • Case studies [Alexis]
      • Local governments - Largo City, Texas Austin etc.
      • EU - Germany, France, UK etc.
      • Developing countries - Brazil, India, China etc.
  • Research and Development
    • Foreign OSS policies' impact on US software industry [Kianwin]
      • Reduction of software imports
      • Development of indigeneous software industry
      • Alternative solution to piracy and IP infringements
    • Licensing terms for government research [Ted, Kianwin]
      • Commercialization of government-funded research
      • Spread of public goods at marginal cost
      • Restriction on GPL or 'viral' licenses
    • Case studies [Ted]
      • Local institutions - NASA, Sandia National Labs, NSA's SELinux
      • Europe: France, Germany
      • Asia: China, Japan, Korea
  • Conclusion (and integration) [Matt]


Main References

Retrieved from "http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/CSEP590TU-wiki/index.php?title=OSS:Brief&oldid=5110"