Asklemmy

50674 readers

332 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

161

What do you think: should all government software be open source? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by fajre@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] fajre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I agree there are cases where sensitivity matters, like national security or systems tied to critical infrastructure. But when it comes to publicly funded software developed specifically for government use, the default should be open by principle. Exceptions can exist, but they must be justified — not the other way around. With COTS products like Microsoft Office, it’s different because the government is just a customer, not the owner of the development.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

With COTS products like Microsoft Office, it’s different because the government is just a customer, not the owner of the development.

That's the point I'm trying to make though. I'm a contractor, and that's super common in government because they don't pay their own a whole lot. The government is my company's customer. Why can't we be the owner of the development and that would justify it being closed source? If we can, the same could apply to anyone else and the whole conversation is moot because of a contractor loophole (which you'd have to be careful in closing to avoid closing yourself off to COTS products)

[–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

The lack of understanding around open source is alarming. Open Source licenses only require someone to share the source with anyone who gets a copy of the binary. So top secret military software can still be open source because if the DoD doesn't share the binary, they don't have to share the code either. But forcing it to be open source ensures that if that software is ever declassified and distributed to 3rd parties, those third parties will have a legal right to the source.