[FOSS-PDI] Ten of the biggest Dutch municipalities say 'enough!' to Microsoft

[Sunil Abraham]

Thanks to Ditesh Kumar <ditesh at gathani.org> of OSSIG mailing list.

>From http://lxer.com/module/newswire/printstory.php?rid=77291
---
Ten of the biggest Dutch municipalities say 'enough!' to Microsoft
Posted by Scott_Ruecker on Dec 27,
2006 12:35 PM
By LXer.com
                     Mail this story
                         Web version


In the OSSOS program, big municipalities have discussed what the demands
for software tenders should be in the future. It became clear,
interoperability and independence from software supplier should be the
most important aspects for such tenders.

Therefore, the municipalities Almere, Assen, Eindhoven (home of Royal
Philips), Enschede, Groningen, Haarlem, Leeuwarden en Nijmegen published
a manifest, in which those demands were summarized. At the same time,
more municipalities were invited to join them and sign the manifest too.
After some doubts, Amsterdam (the capital) and The Hague (the political
capital, like Washington is to the USA) also signed the manifest, and
more municipalities, but also other government agencies may still follow
them.

Nonetheless, open source software isn't mentioned in the manifest. This
is done deliberately. Instead of asking for open source, the manifest
explains what the goals of that 'open source' should be; making it
harder for suppliers to abuse the term 'open software', and label their
closed software 'open'. There are four terms of 'openness' in the
manifest:

     1. Supplier independence
     2. Interoperability
     3. Transparency and verifiability and 
     4. Digital durability

Lets review those terms:

Term one is meant to make it possible for companies to compete against
each other, and should ensure the government acquires the best deal for
the best price. With closes source software, this would be impossible.
With shared or open software, this would or would not be possible,
depending on the license. With free software, this would always be
possible.

Term two is rather important for a government: it shouldn't be any
difference which software the government or the citizens use - documents
should be available for anyone using the software applications they
prefer. Citizens shouldn't be forced to use certain software to read
the .doc Microsoft-Word documents of the government.

Term three refers to the Law on Protection of Personal data (WBP); which
means the government should protect the privacy of their citizens. With
closed software, it is impossible to verify the demands of privacy
stated in the Dutch law (WBP) are met. It should be possible for the
government to audit software.

Term four concerns the future: the government should be able to use
their data - preferably even when the software to read that data isn't
available anymore. Therefore, well documented open standards have to be
used.

This means, companies as Microsoft and SAP still have a chance, and a
lot depends on how those municipalities interpret the four terms. As
said, Microsofts 'shared source' might meet the demands of term three,
because the government can look into the code, but it may not meet the
demands of term one. That's because other companies may not be able to
maintain 'shared source' code, since that might mean breaking the shared
source license. That's just an example, I'm not saying shared source can
be used or not, that's up to the municipalities and some lawyers.
Nonetheless, it's obvious free software most easily meets the four
terms, and is the most convenient to avoid discussions.

Now, I was at the first T-DOSE open source event, held in Eindhoven a
few weeks ago, and I heard there is a lot happening behind the scenes in
municipalities. But, municipalities often have doubts about the cost
feasibility of migrations. Moreover, the Dutch administrative machinery
isn't the most flexible agency one could imagine, though it differs per
person.

I should add, some Dutch municipalities already tested open source - in
varying degrees. Groningen (170.000 inhabitants) switches to OpenOffice,
and six other municipalities near Groningen tried open source. Some of
them used OpenOffice, some of them Linux, and most of them were happy
with the result. The municipality of Haren switched to a LTSP system
(still including some proprietary software), a welfare organization in
Amsterdam uses open source now, the region of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen uses
open source a lot (mainly because the IT-manager is an open-source
enthusiast), and also the municipalities of IJsselstein and Goes are
using it. The Dutch government even facilitated an exchange-platform for
open-source developers. 

Nonetheless, the federal government still had a secret meeting in which
Microsoft was given the exclusive right to make a tender. Therefore, the
conclusion is, open source in the Netherlands goes from the bottom to
the top. It might have to do with influence: It is far easier for
companies like Microsoft to influence/lobby the 'one' federal
government, than it is to influence about 460 different municipalities.
Slowly and a bit hesitant, but surely - and rather unstoppable, open
source and open standards are making its way in the Dutch government.


Printed at http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/77291/index.html