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?
Yes, with an exception for military and law environment branches
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.
Public money, public code.
Its really that simple
Within reason.
A nice little application to calculate tax and benefits? For sure.
A detailed model on how a nuclear attack would behave depending on the wind direction and tidal waves? That shit needs to be kept secret.
That should def be open source
Not only should the source code be available, but they need to be Free Software (licenses such as GPL, Apache, etc.).
Software developed by government funded research is typically released open source in the US.
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 funds for only public code. Any and arguments involving security are invalid.
Ken Thompson’s nightmare scenario was solved by a couple people who were enjoying their hobby in their free time and not by any of the military programs that have to date spent over $22 Billion and have achieved far less.
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.
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.
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
Another can of worms is dealing with proprietary technology. A lot of software is built in partnership with private companies. They likely don’t want to give out their competitive edge for free.
I think more government software should be open source, but I don’t think it’s possible to make all software open source.
yeah i think all government software available to the public should be free and open source.
What do you think: should all government software be open source?
No. I think that there are some things that should very much not be open source or even have binaries distributed, stuff like things like software used for some military purposes. You wouldn’t want to distribute it with abandon to the world any more than you would the weapons it drives or is used to create.
Open source only requires source distribution with binary distribution, so the software can be open source and still not publicly distributed. It just means if its ever declassified, the source will be required to be distributed along with the software itself.
If the source isn’t publicly available, it’s not open source. It sounds like you’re suggesting that the software remain closed source until some later date where it then becomes open source.
That is simply not true. Go read a few open source licenses and see for yourself. They only require that the source code be distributed with copies of the software itself. The code is not required to be made available to the general public.
I’d say that kind of thing should fall under a label of being “Classified”. If it’s something like a recruitment page for the Army that shouldn’t need any kind of classification.
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)
Yes, in the same way all research funded by the public should be open. If you pay for a dataset to be gathered and only one team gets to use it you have wasted money. Make the dataset open, make all the methods open, and it can be used multiple times, increasing the return on investment. In the same way if someone is working on security auditing for something like OpenSSH anyone who uses it benefits. You pay once for the work but get benefit for all who use it.
This also makes standardising easier because of the common tools so you can have cross department access without unnecessary technical barriers. For example, making a standard format for data in a SQL database means you can access multiple datasets and correlate them, allowing the study of important issues with minimal fuss. You can even create standards for accessing this data to make it much safer to use without exposing people’s personal information.
On the flip side you could have Microsoft and other similar companies decide what is worth investing in and just hope their system will work. If there is a security issue you just have to wait for them to patch it assuming they identify it. If they stop supporting something you can’t keep using it with external support because you don’t have the code.
Honestly, it is also a national security risk. Using a vendor from another country means you have someone who can access your data with software you cannot audit who is potentially influenced by the government of another country and you just have to trust them. I cannot understand the use of Windows in military applications. Honestly, asking the fox to guard the hen house. Why would you let the USA have access to your systems with the plausibly deniability of a company like Microsoft in between? Sounds like lazy writing for a military fantasy novel, not modern foreign policy.
I think all public funds that generate data and/or software needs to be public.
The notion that maintenance is an issue is a red herring. Proprietary software purchased by government requires ongoing support contracts right until the vendor discontinues the product and leaves the public funds to prop up another billionaire.
Open source would also stimulate the economy since businesses could benefit from the project and use or apply it to their use, something which currently requires more investment with the same vendor.
