Canadian Federal Government Mulling Open Source? 117
An anonymous reader points out a CBC report discussing a request from the Canadian government for information about open source software and free proprietary software. Evan Leibovitch, an advocate for open source, says the government's interest was spurred by a desire to reduce expenditures during the recession.
"...Leibovitch said he hopes the request will lead to government policies that give 'a level playing field' to vendors of open-source software services, who provide technical and administrative support to companies that use open-source programs. He alleges these service providers currently face barriers when competing with proprietary software vendors in the government procurement process. ... When the government purchases software, it often assumes that it will have to pay for a licence and asks software vendors to bid for the contract, McOrmond said. Vendors of open source software services don't respond to that initial call for tender because they have no licences to sell. But then, the government might ask for a separate round of bids for providing support services for the software, which open-source vendors could provide."
Re:Very good idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
To expand on your point:
I used to work for a department of the Canadian federal government (in IT). We used quite a bit of open source.
But there were plenty of people that didn't. Including some people in IT. There were quite a few people, far into their careers, that were set in their ways (like most places). In this instance, that refers to using and administering Windows.
Since they are part of a union, they aren't going anywhere for another 10-25 years (people under 30 are more likely to know both).
What I've said is not only based on my observations, but is really grounded in a conversation I once had with an IT manager. This conversation sticks out in my mind because it is the first (and only) time I discussed the issue of MSCE entrenchment with an entrenched MSCE.
There is a reason I only had the conversation once. I instantly knew nothing was going to change, and saw little point in ever bringing it up again. MSCEs are not just loyal, but are invested in Microsoft. Turfing Windows means turfing/converting them too!
Green Party Platform (Score:5, Interesting)
Open Source software was part of the Green Party's very thorough and thoughtful election campaign. Too bad most Canadians never bothered to read it.
I see it still features on their web site [greenparty.ca] as a current issue. With a minority government in power and the threat of a coalition or vote of non-confidence always looming, it's hard to say how much pull the Greens really have, having failed yet again to win a seat in parliament.
Re:Link to RFI: No-Charge License Software (Score:3, Interesting)
http://documentation.wikia.com/wiki/METRo [wikia.com]
http://metpx.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
http://iti-iit.cnrc-nrc.gc.ca/colloq/0708/07-10-25-print_e.html [cnrc-nrc.gc.ca]
usage: http://openconcept.ca/blog/mgifford/what_people_arent_saying_about_nrcan_wiki_and_gcpedia [openconcept.ca]
Gimme a break... (Score:3, Interesting)
I applaud the effort by government IT to have more in-house knowledge about open source software (and about what software offerings are available in general).
But I don't really understand what it is about the procurement process that is a barrier to open source software.
If the procurement process involves publishing an open request for proposals (RFP), and then accepting bids from interested parties, then presumably anyone can read the RFP, doesn't that mean that any interested member of the public can figure out how to accomplish that with open source software, and then put in an offer to license it to the government for whatever they want?