Slide 08

(8) FOSS Government Policy and E-
Government
Reasons for FOSS promotion by national and local
government
Considering reasons why does government promote
FOSS?
Trends in Europe
Examples of Germany (Munich), UK, and France
Trends in the United States

US government, state governments (case study in
Massachusetts)
Trends in Asia
Situations regarding FOSS in east and southeast Asia
Trends in national and local Japanese government

FOSS adoption trends and their policies
An Introduction to Free/Open-Source Software Copyright © 2005,2006, Center of the International Cooperation for Computerization (CICC) All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © 2005,2006, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 201
Copyright © 2008, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. All Rights Reserved.
Reasons for FOSS Promotion by
National and Local Government
Reduce costs and vendor lock-in
Efforts to make sense in government procurement
Transparency of procurement and security

Transparency of procurement and ensuring of security
through the utilizing the nature of FOSS are expected
Fostering the development of domestic industry

FOSS critical to promoting national IT Industry
Overcoming the “Digital Divide”

FOSS is very efficient with low investment for the
introduction of IT
Reduce Costs and Vendor Lock-In
Reduce costs
Thought to be chief advantage of deploying GNU/Linux
Nearly always true when replacing Unix
TCO gap with Windows is small and debatable
Focus turns to maintenance costs
Maintenance of middleware and applications; cost of
administrative engineers
Purpose of government to spend taxes by generating
and providing public services; governments seek to
deploy FOSS for improved efficiency
Prevent vendor lock-in

Important from standpoint of fairness
Extreme example of vendor lock-in: “One yen bid”
-> See Vendor Lock-In
Transparency of Procurement and
Security
Transparency necessary for government procurement
WTO Ministerial Conference
Established Working Group on Transparency in Government
Procurement Practices
Ensure transparency and competitiveness of public
procurement
Issues
Closed public procurement
Prevent government-initiative collusion
Since source code for FOSS is released, using FOSS promises to
ensure transparency of procurement
Security
China cites need to ensure national security as one reason
for promoting FOSS
Backdoor mechanisms cannot be hidden with FOSS
Fostering the Development of
Domestic Industry
Critical mission of governments to promote
domestic IT industry
IT vendors from US dominate almost all of package software
market
Governments dislike dependency on foreign sources for
high revenue, core software
Desire to avoid “black boxing” of infrastructure technology
Strong FOSS emphasis in Europe and Asia
Germany: Home to leading FOSS vendors such as SUSE, KDE,
OpenOffice, etc.
China: Announced policy to restrict government procurement to
domestic software
Japan: Local governments active in fostering
local IT industry
Hokkaido, Okinawa, Gifu, Nagasaki Prefectures
Desire to eliminate subcontractor structure for local IT firms
Overcoming the Digital Divide
Digital divide
Digital divide created by gaps in income
Digitization among high-income earners
Low-income earners cannot obtain digital equipment
FOSS effective in promoting digitization among

low-income earners
Enables IT advancement with limited funds
Also critical to provide cheap hardware and affordable
education
One of the acute problems facing Southeast Asia

and South Asia in particular
Overcoming the digital divide in developing countries
FOSS deployment expected to solve this situation
Trends in Europe
European Union
Promoting FOSS in aspects of lower cost and
interoperability
Germany
Entering the next stage of “how to deploy FOSS” from
the initial stage of “why FOSS”
Case study: Munich Municipal Government

Migrating to 14,000 GNU/Linux PCs over 5 years
UK and France
UK: going deeply into FOSS
France: walking its own independent path regarding
FOSS
European Union
Main focus on reducing costs of e-government and
ensuring interoperability
FOSS ideal from standpoint of both cost and
interoperability
Promoting FOSS deployment
EC recommends governments deploy FOSS to reduce e-
government costs totaling 6.6 billion Euros (July 2002)
Launched portal site to encourage spread of FOSS
(December 2003)
Established COSPA to promote FOSS deployment (April
2004)
EU’s IDA Programme recommends OpenOffice.org format
as standard office document format for data exchange
within government sector (May 2004)
European Union (cont.)
UNU-MERIT FOSS economic impact study (2006)
Estimates value of FOSS at 12 billion Euro
Expects FOSS-related economy to account for 4% of
GDP in the EU
Identifies FOSS as area in which SMEs find good
environment
Expects FOSS-related jobs to counter brain-drain
towards USA and to close IT gap between EU and USA
Germany
Germany at forefront of FOSS deployment
Debates focused today “How to deploy FOSS”
Case studies
Federal Ministry of Interior signs comprehensive procurement
contract for IBM/SUSE Linux machines (June 2002)
Enables low cost procurement of GNU/Linux servers
Federal Ministry of Interior announces guidelines for FOSS
migration (July 2003)
Contains list of replacement software and precautions for FOSS
migration, for desktop through to server environments
Actual FOSS migration increasing at local government level
Munich city decides to migrate 14,000 machines to GNU/Linux (May
2003)
Schwäbisch Hall district migrates 400 machines to GNU/Linux
(2002-2004)
Audit office of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania completes
migration to GNU/Linux (November 2004)
Case Study: Munich Municipal
Government
Munich city council decides to undertake GNU/Linux
migration for 14,000 PCs used by 16,000 users (May
2003)
Reasons
To reduce costs? (Not the biggest reason)
IBM/SUSE proposal: $39.5 million
Microsoft proposal: $36.6 million, later cut to $23.7 million
Avoid dependency on specific products
Promote market competition
“Soft” migration
Gradual migration overAug.
5 years
D ec. 2002 client survey conducted
M ay 28, 2002 m igration to O SS resolved at city council
Replace with Web- Jun. 2002 Jun. 2004 detailed planning w ith IBM and SU SE
Jun. 16, 2004 authorized at city council
based systems Jun. 2004 Linux m igration project `LiM ux' began
Emulators also to be Aug. 2004

Sep, 2004
project stopped bacause of patent issue
project restarted
used initially Jan. 2005 trial m igration started
(VMWare, etc.)
United Kingdom
UK: Leaning toward FOSS from neutral stance
FOSS Policy recommends government procurement of
FOSS (July 2002)
Office of Government Commerce (OGC) decides to
deploy GNU/Linux for large-scale system (April 2003)
OGC issues report on FOSS trials (October 2004)
FOSS considered to be realistic desktop alternative
FOSS anticipated to reduce costs; no issues with
interoperability
France
France: Independent approach to FOSS
deployment
Ministry of Culture and Communications to conclude
across-the-board GNU/Linux migration in 2005
French government establishes ATICA (now ADEA) to
promote FOSS (July 2002)
Large-scale deployment of FOSS desktops studied as
part of ADELE strategic plan for electronic
administration (February 2004)
Calls for GNU/Linux migration on 5-15% of desktops by
2007
Defense Ministry signs 3-year, 7 million Euro contract
with consortium of Mandrakesoft and other companies
to gain CC-EAL5 certification (September 2004)
Trends in the United States
US government
Although US Federal government has “No Policy”,
actual FOSS adoption are increasing
State governments
FOSS deployment is gaining momentum
Case Study: State of Massachusetts

The policy stated that new application should adhere
to open standard and FOSS
They have FOSS-based application to be developed
under the new policy
Released in the repository, GOCC (Government Open
Code Collaborative)
US Government
“No policy” stance by US federal government:
Strong opposition by leading IT vendors
Actual FOSS deployment by US federal government

is increasing
FOSS already deployed by 250 government sector institutions
(May 2002)
Government reports recommend FOSS deployment
PITAC recommends FOSS for supercomputers (September 2000);
MITRE recommends FOSS for Defense Department (October
2002)
FOSS inclusion in government procurement
standards
Defense Department issues memo containing guidelines for
FOSS acquisition (June 2003)
CC-EAL3 certification acquired for IBM/SUSE platform (January
2004)
An Introduction Copyright © 2005,2006, Center of the International Cooperation for Computerization (CICC) All Rights Reserved.
to Free/Open-Source Software
State Governments
Movement to deploy FOSS among some state
governments
Oregon, Texas, Hawaii and other states have proposed bills for
FOSS deployment, which were rejected or shelved
State of Massachusetts introduces preferential policy toward
FOSS (September 2003)
Policy later toned down to consider “all possible alternatives
– proprietary, open source, and public sector code sharing –
in determining best value solutions” (January 2004)
Austin City implements GNU/Linux and OpenOffice.org trials
(December 2003)
Start of collaborative project to develop FOSS for e-
government, led by Massachusetts State (June 2004)
The Government Open Code Collaborative
California Performance Review Commission recommends
increase in FOSS deployment by California state government
(August 2004)
Case Study: State of Massachusetts
Virtual Law Office

Cost-cutting move necessitated by financial difficulties due to drop
in state tax revenues
CIO meeting proposes policy to deploy open standards and
Free/Open-Source
Migration of legacy systems to GNU/Linux platform
SUSE Linux running in virtual machine on mainframe
Red Hat Linux Advanced Server running on IA server
GOCC (Government Open Code Collaborative)

Launched in December 2003
Framework for sharing source code with other state governments
Reduce costs by sharing code with other states
Enables continued collaborative development through
community effort
MIT and Harvard provide technical and legal support
11 state agencies involved, from eight states
Trends in Asia
East Asia
China, Taiwan and Koria
Northeast Asia FOSS Promotion Forum: cooperation
between Japan, China and Korea
Southeast Asia
Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam
Asia FOSS Symposium: held twice a year
East Asia:
China, Taiwan and South Korea
China
National GNU/Linux strategy
Government-led development of Chinese versions of
GNU/Linux
Red Flag Linux, Yangfan Linux, Qihang Linux
Focus on human resources development
GNU/Linux “1+1+1” Project
Taiwan
Many initiatives to promote FOSS
Hosts many FOSS international conferences
South Korea
Flood of GNU/Linux distributors and ongoing market
realignment
South Korean government rapidly deploying FOSS
Northeast Asia FOSS Promotion Forum
International collaborative project by Japan, China and
South Korea
1st Forum: Beijing, China (April 2004)
2nd Forum: Sapporo, Japan (July 2004)
3rd Forum: Seoul, Korea (December 2004)
Established joint working groups that engage in
activities
Technology Development & Assessment (WG1), Human
Resource Development (WG2) and Study on Standardization &
Certification (WG3)
Supporting organizations formed in each country
Japan FOSS Promotion Forum created in Japan
Secretariat: Information-Technology Promotion Agency, Japan
(IPA)
METI, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), and
Japan Information Technology Services Industry Association (JISA)
involved as observers
Southeast Asia:
Thailand and Malaysia
Thailand
Leading FOSS nation in Southeast Asia
National Electronics and Computer Technology Center
(NECTEC): Core organization for promoting FOSS
Sales of 100,000 GNU/Linux PCs through ICT PC Project
(now called People’s PC Project)
Development of GNU/Linux Thai Language Extension (TLE),
etc.
Malaysia
Promoting FOSS through national government and
various government organizations
MIMOS (The Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic System)
Established the Asian Open Source Center (ASIAOSC)
MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernization and
Management Planning Unit)
Announced Public Sector Open Source Master Plan (July 2004)
Southeast Asia:
Philippines and Vietnam
Philippines
Anti-piracy a driving factor for promoting FOSS
Rampant software piracy (reportedly over 60% of all
software)
FOSS promoted as part of e-Philippine program
Vietnam
Rapid acceleration in FOSS promotion, sparked by Asia
FOSS Symposium
Approved master plan: Applying and Developing Open
Source Software in Vietnam for the 2004-2008 Period
(March 2004)
FOSS training courses
Conferences on FOSS migration, etc.
Asia Open Source Software
Symposium
Jointly sponsored by Center of International
Cooperation for Computerization (CICC), Japan and
organizations in host nations
History
First Symposium: Phuket, Thailand (March 2003)
2nd Symposium: Singapore (November 2003)
3rd Symposium: Hanoi, Vietnam (March 2004)
4th Symposium: Taipei, Taiwan (September 2004)
5th Symposium: Beijing, China (March 2005)
6th Symposium: Colombo, SriLanka (September 2005)
Features of Asia FOSS Symposium

Impact on host nation
Discuss topics related to FOSS
Share information about status of FOSS promotion in each region
Cooperate on FOSS promotion in Asia
Trends in National and Local Japanese
Government
FOSS Policies by Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry
Survey on FOSS usage and FOSS deployment guidelines
FOSS feasibility trials
IPA sponsorship of FOSS development by private sector
FOSS policies in e-government by Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communication (MIC)
Study group concerning “Secure OS”
Collaborative Outsourcing / e-Municipality Promotion
Strategy
Trends in FOSS deployment at local government level
Part of regional development policy
Avoidance of vendor lock-in and emphasis on cost
Case studies: FOSS procurement by local governments
Case study: Nagasaki prefecture and Hokkaido
FOSS Policies by Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry
Policies to promote Japanese IT service industry and software
industry
Current massive trade deficit in software
Loss of technical capabilities from erosion of Japanese
infrastructure software
Shortage of human resources development for Japanese
engineers, due to drastic increase of FOSS market
FOSS usage survey and guidelines for studying FOSS
deployment
Wide overview of major FOSS, FOSS licensing and business
models using FOSS
IPA’s Infrastructure Building Program for Open Source Software
Funds development related to perceived areas of FOSS weakness
Enterprise technologies
Embedded field
Desktops
Issues unique to Japanese language (fonts, printing, character encoding)
FOSS Policies in E-Government by Ministry
of Internal Affairs and Communications
Study Group Concerning Secure OS
Report examining security requirements for procurement of FOSS
operating systems by e-government
Procurement of specified operating systems is “inadequate”;
procurement should be decided based on overall assessment of functions and
quality
FOSS comparable to commercial software for functionality and performance
Precautions for government procurement of FOSS operating
systems
Vital to include support contract
Additional software may be required if higher level of security is needed
Collaborative outsourcing strategy to promote e-municipality
Collaborative development of common systems for e-municipalities
Systems for online application and filing, accounting, payroll, etc.
Employs FOSS-like development method
Several prefectures enlisted to develop different e-municipality functions
Source code released without charge; local governments free to modify or use
software
Trends in FOSS Deployment by Local
Governments
FOSS deployment for e-municipality platforms
FOSS operating environments using Java application packages
Urayasu City
Portal sites for local residents
Yamanashi, Kagawa, Okinawa Prefectures, etc.
Release of software developed under MIC’s collaborative
outsourcing project
Hokkaido, Shizuoka Prefecture
Deployment for internal systems
FOSS servers widely deployed as Web servers, mail servers, etc.
FOSS deployment for desktops
Sumoto City
GNU/Linux servers deployed as gateways to local government WANs
Deployed by 800 local governments
Reasons for FOSS Deployment by
Local Governments
Systems procurement by local governments and issues for
local IT firms
Ever-increasing concentration on centralized vendors due to too much
emphasis on established suppliers
FOSS deployment expected to enable participation in systems procurement by
small- and medium-sized local vendors that lack technology for specific
products, leading to promotion of local industry
Tendency to emphasize established suppliers, due to difficulty of separating
systems design, development and operations
Difficulty in judging costs
Regular rotation of IT systems personnel a problem
Regular personnel transfers leads to lack of specialized IT knowledge
Switch to long-term assignments for personnel with highly specialized
knowledge
Implement resident services and practice information
disclosure
Deploy systems according to needs of each situation, without being
limited to existing systems
Transparency of deployment process ensured
Systems Procurement by Local Government
and Issues for Local IT Firms
Situation for local governments (LGs)
C reated by M R I based on
LGs may limit bidding to established suppliers m aterials of N agasaki Prefecture
Specifications for a public tender are left up to vendors
Blanket contracts that cover from defining
requirements to systems operations
Additional development is automatically awarded to the same
vendor
Prevent LGs from directly awarding contracts to local IT vendors

LGs are forced to accept expensive systems that suit the needs
of vendors
Situation for local IT firms

Local IT firms are subcontractors to major vendors
The subcontractor role tends to prevent local IT firms from
developing the skill set needed for project management
Venture firms are not even qualified to participate in bidding
Vicious circle Subcontractors tend to be difficult to keep resources to learn
new technology
Tiered subcontractor structure is accelerating

due to the shortcomings of local IT vendors
The issue is compounded by the growing scale and
the increasing use of shared e-municipality systems
Case Study: Nagasaki Prefecture
C reated by M R I based on
Systems Procurement by Nagasaki Prefecture m aterials of N agasaki Prefecture
Prefecture staff Divide into Bidding & Order Local firms (2*N)
bidding unit (N) A system Development
Development Spec. Development Spec.
(Requirements, Basic design)
Test Spec. Testing
✗ System development is separated by function
✗ Specification requires the use of FOSS B system Development
Development Spec.
Bidding & Test Spec. Testing
Local firms Order
C system Development
Test Specification Development Spec.
Test Spec. Testing
ø Benefits of Using Detailed Specifications Separated by Function ø

Tasks are narrowly defined, enabling local firms to participate in bidding based on own capabilities and
areas of specialization
Local firms with limited extra resources can get involved, due to availability of detailed specifications and
awarding of additional contracts if specification changes
Many local firms can participate, since contracts are separated into small sizes
ø Benefits of Specifying FOSS ø

Specifying FOSS enables equal participation by local firms that do not possess their own software packages
Specifying FOSS enables contracted firms to use FOSS without worry
Case Study: Hokkaido Government
Activities of FOSS Communities

ø HOSS: Hokkaido Open Source and Security (NPO)
ø e-Municipal project / Study Group on Open Source
ø Local User Communities
- DOLUG : Hokkaido Linux User Group
- PostgreSQL User Group Hokkaido Branch
- Zope User Group Hokkaido Branch
- NoBUG: Hokkaido *BSD User Group
Support from local governments

Commitment from the University ø establishment of FOSS venture firm (Technoface)
ø Hokkaido Univ. ø Hokkaido local govt.
(Open System Engineering Course) “declaration of departure from Windows”
ø Industry-University collaboration project: ø Ebetsu City “Branding Dictionary” project
OpenSOAP ø Large scale GNU/Linux adoption to
Hokkaido high-school net
FOSS related firms

ø Technoface: SIer based on OpenSOAP
ø IP telecom : IPT-Linux and remote surveillance service
ø Cyber blue : Development of Open Source GIS
Education and FOSS
IT use in educational settings
Fundamental idea to use IT equipment in the field of
education
Situation in Japanese schools

Japanese public schools suffer from a lack of funding to
manage IT equipment
Raising expectations for utilizing FOSS
Aim of software vendors

Motivated by a desire to invest in students as future
users
Case Study: FOSS trials in education

Some trial projects to use FOSS in educational field
have been conducted
IT Use in Educational Settings
Area of emphasis under e-Japan strategy
Advancement of Human Resource Development and
the Promotion of Education and Learning
e-Japan Priority Policy Program 2004
Digitization of school education
Improve IT environment in schools
By FY2005, provide 1:1 ratio of PC s to students in
com puter labs and 5.4 ratio of students to each
educational PC in regular classroom s
IT use in education not information literacy
education
Use of IT in education, not education of IT itself
Except for “Information Study” curriculum in upper
secondary schools
IT use aimed at boosting achievement of fundamental
goals of education
Situation in Japanese Schools
Inadequate funds to deploy, Instruction using IT
administer and operate IT equipment
equipment Various experimental
Administration of equipment programs are being tried
Administration of equipment Implementation varies widely
frequently left up to select depending on school board,
group of knowledgeable school and teacher
teachers Active use of multimedia
Imposes extra workload on content
teachers Reaction to FOSS from
Volunteer staffs from PTA students
committees or alumni Able to quickly take in new
sometimes build systems ideas
Inadequate safeguards for Some teachers commented
security and privacy, despite that they learned new things
sensitivity toward these issues from students
Aim of Software Vendors
Students and children seen as future users
Type of enclosure strategy
Reasons for academic pricing
Pretext: For cash-strapped students
Real reason: Capture users at early stage
Issues with Information Study textbooks

Examples used to illustrate how applications work
Pros and cons of describing specific applications
Meaningful to teach operating methods specific to
applications?
Is it fair to teach students about specific applications?
Case Study: FOSS Trials in Education
IPA-sponsored field tests of FOSS desktops in educational
institutions (2004)
GNU/Linux desktops deployed at eight elementary and lower
secondary schools in Tsukuba City and Gifu Prefecture
300 machines deployed and used by 3,000 students
Knoppix trials
Knoppix used by 800 students at eight schools across Japan
(elementary/upper secondary schools, one technical school and
several universities)
Norway’s Skolelinux project (2003)
Skolelinux deployed and evaluated at four elementary and lower
secondary schools in Norway
http://www.skolelinux.org/portal/documentation/reports/
UK’s Open Source Software in Schools project (2004)
FOSS deployed and evaluated at 15 elementary and lower
secondary schools in UK
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/907

Slide 08

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Slide 08

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(8) FOSS Government Policy and E-

Trends in the United States

Trends in national and local Japanese government

Transparency of procurement and security

Fostering the development of domestic industry

Overcoming the “Digital Divide”

Prevent vendor lock-in

FOSS effective in promoting digitization among

One of the acute problems facing Southeast Asia

Case study: Munich Municipal Government

Emulators also to be Aug. 2004

Case Study: State of Massachusetts

Actual FOSS deployment by US federal government

Virtual Law Office

GOCC (Government Open Code Collaborative)

Features of Asia FOSS Symposium

Prevent LGs from directly awarding contracts to local IT vendors

Situation for local IT firms

Tiered subcontractor structure is accelerating

ø Benefits of Using Detailed Specifications Separated by Function ø

ø Benefits of Specifying FOSS ø

Activities of FOSS Communities

Support from local governments

FOSS related firms

Situation in Japanese schools

Aim of software vendors

Case Study: FOSS trials in education

Issues with Information Study textbooks

Вам также может понравиться