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
    0·
    13 days 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
      0·
      13 days 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
        0·
        13 days 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.

        • hypna@lemmy.world
          0·
          12 days 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.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        13 days 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.