Re: Software as a public service

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>>>"Frank" == Frank Hecker <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> 
>     Frank> In this sense open source/free software is actually viewed
>     Frank> by some as a step backward as far as the US government is
>     Frank> concerned: Why should the government want to modify the
>     Frank> software it procures, or have a contractor do it? Isn't
>     Frank> that what caused the whole problem in the first place? 
>     Frank> (These are not my opinions, I hasten to add.)
> 
> Do you have a reference for this?

Not specifically, it's just an impression I've gotten from talking to 
people in the US government over the years. I think what happened with 
the whole COTS idea was that in reaction to some of the excesses with US 
government-developed or -commissioned software (cost and schedule 
overruns, lack of features relative to commercial alternatives, etc.), 
some in the US government became convinced that the solution was to 
standardize on commercial software products wherever possible and leave 
software development and customization to the software vendors.

Note that this was for software where the US government did not have 
many if any government-specific requirements; software intended for 
government-specific missions was/is still developed by government 
contractors. I think we have to keep this in mind when talking about 
FOSS in the government arena: Having source code (and allowing free use 
of that source code) for a government-specific contractor-developed 
application is a different topic than having source code for a 
commercial software product procured by the government from commercial 
vendors. It's the latter topic I was discussing in my comments that you 
quoted.

> Everybody I know (not a
> statistically valid sample ;-) either in the government or involved in
> "Beltway banditry" is keenly aware of the private sector practices,
> where consulting and customization is becoming the rule.  While there
> are obvious advantages to customization by the original vendor, those
> on either side of the fence see "with source" as a stick the
> government can wield in negotiating contracts.

Again, we have to distinguish between bespoke software and COTS 
software. For COTS software the prevailing trend in the US government as 
I see it has been to standardize on single products and vendors to the 
maximum extent possible in order to consolidate buying power across 
agencies. See for example the GSA SmartBuy program:

   http://www.gsa.gov/smartbuy

So, for example, the goal is not necessarily to pick a FOSS product (say 
GNU/Linux) and use availability of source to play off one Linux 
vendor/contractor against another. Historically the goal has been more 
to standardize on a non-FOSS "market leader", e.g., Windows or Oracle, 
and then to aggregate orders across agencies to get volume discounts.

Having said that, I think that some people in the US government are 
indeed realizing the opportunities inherent in using FOSS products, and 
I note that the GSA SmartBuy program includes purchase of open source 
software support as one of its goals. However I still talk to plenty of 
people in the US government who are happily standardizing on Windows, 
Oracle, etc., with competition defined primarily as the ability to 
purchase these products through multiple contract vehicles associated 
with multiple resellers.

Frank

-- 
Frank Hecker
[email protected]