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?

  • hypna@lemmy.world
    2·
    15 hours ago

    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.

    https://opensource.org/osd

    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.

    • humanamerican@lemmy.zip
      1·
      10 hours ago

      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.