I was an interested observer when AGIMO published their Open Source Software Policy Principles and recently I asked why are they in my view so one sided… Oh and on Twitter
I do think the Idea is solid but just like so many other things where we try to level the playing field we go to far the other way can’t we just require a detailed evaluation report be produced for all evaluations … Oh Wait 
Let me explain
There was a time when I was a bit of a hater when it came to use of Open Source Software and was often heard to say “Open Source is free if your time has no value”. These days I use quite a bit of software not produced by the closed source dynamos.
The Document that I’m wanting to discuss is
Australian Government Information Management Office
(AGIMO) Circular
Subject: Open Source Software Policy
Approved by the Secretaries’ ICT Governance Board on 21 December 2010
Circular No: 2010/004
Now I think the intent is to level a playing field but I’d like to demonstrate how it really is reverse discriminatory.
Principle 1: Australian Government ICT procurement processes must actively
and fairly consider all types of available software.
Australian Government agencies must actively and fairly consider all types of
available software (including but not limited to open source software and proprietary
software) through their ICT procurement processes. It is recognised there may be
areas where open source software is not yet available for consideration.
Can we pretend that I am a Public Servant with a project that includes software? I like that all software types are actively and fairly considered that is great.
Not all requirements will have an Open Source option but how do I determine that?? There will always be someone who has better Bing err Google Foo than I. Am I responsible for an exhaustive search or is an ATM in ausTender the end of my responsibility?
Closed Source Vendors either respond or not this should apply to Open Source Vendors too in my view.
Principle 2: Suppliers must consider all types of available software when
dealing with Australian Government agencies.
Australian Government agencies will require suppliers to consider all types of
available software (including but not limited to open source software and proprietary
software) when responding to agencies‟ procurement requests.
Agencies are required to insert this requirement into their tender documentation.
Suppliers will need to provide justification outlining their consideration and/or
exclusion of open source software in their response to the tender. Agencies will
determine compliance with this requirement when assessing tender responses.
I have enormous problems with this Principle…
We provide solutions we are expert in implementing and supporting we do not pretend to be all things to all people.
This Principle forces two outcomes:
- Justification of consideration and/or exclusion of open source software. This forces a bidder to say something negative in order to be compliant either:
- We are not able to provide breadth of services or (not great about the bidder)
- All other options but the one we are pitching are inferior AND BTW we have checked them all (arrogant and maybe actionable)
I’d much prefer to talk about benefits of our solution and not even talk about things that don’t enhance the evaluation teams understanding of our capabilities.
- An evaluation team needs to decide about non compliance based on this requirement. What if a bidder says “we did not consider ANY open source options because we believe our closed source partner fits the requirement” is this a non compliant bid? Should IBM be required to explain why they did not pitch Exchange in place of Domino? or Vice Versa
Principle 3: Australian Government agencies will actively participate in open
source software communities and contribute back where appropriate.
The Australian Government, through AGIMO, will actively seek to keep up-to-date
with international best practice in the open source software arena, through engaging
with other countries and organisations. Australian Government agencies should also
actively participate in open source software communities and contribute back where
appropriate.
I have no problem with Principle 3
The Key points I think are fantastic except Point 4. I think it needs work and hopefully I will have explained my position adequately enough to help someone smarter than me to redraft something a little better.
Key Point 4. Agencies should consider re-using existing software assets before acquiring either open source or proprietary software.
I think the decision to reuse existing assets is often not taken due to fear of being accused of not being open to the market, particularly when software licencing bundles include features where there are vendors of niche software now commonly included in most operating systems.
This usually makes Departments go to tender to seem impartial and then something unexpected happens, nobody bids the product / feature that is bundled because you can’t sell someone something they already own.
This is a shame because the bundled product often needs to be disabled at risk to the solution and expense, all because the evaluation team has no option but to say if the vendor wanted us to use their product they would have bid it.
This really is a big issue not strictly related to OSS but I’m sure a frustration for IT Teams who if they could, would in house bid the product they have and can manage best.
Of course they shouldn’t have to.
and it changes with each open anyway so make sure you print a spare and save it SECURELY (against Loss not Compromise) 
) 2012 Beta was released and Thursday night was the Kick Off.
Cisco will kill off its popular Flip high definition video recorder as part of a wider realignment of its consumer business
![clip_image001[4]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_aZwG27lBxA8/TXnal5pQzGI/AAAAAAAAAtU/FOXJtKHEbGQ/s1600-h/clip_image001%5B4%5D%5B2%5D.gif "clip_image001[4]")