OQB @fajre@lemmy.world

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?

  • humanamerican@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

    • hypna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • humanamerican@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You don’t get to redefine open source. It’s always been about giving the source code to whoever you give the software.

        Making it publicly available is an acceptable alternative to fulfill that obligation.