Francis Maude, minister for the Cabinet Office, has clarified the government’s policy on seeking open standards when procuring IT equipment, following confusion over whether “open standards” means Royalty-Free (RF) or Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND).
Technologies available under RF conditions, can be used freely, while those under FRAND terms require users to pay a “reasonable” royalty. The HTTP protocol is free, for instance, while technologies for 3G communications are FRAND.
The distinction is important, because it is difficult for the open source community to implement technologies available under FRAND; the FRAND terms require a licence to be paid, while the open source licence requires source code to be distributed freely.
So if the government is serious about creating a level playing field for open source software, it needs to specify that software should be available RF. Indeed, in its procurement policy note, dated 31 January 2011, the government stated that open standards were defined as those which have “intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis”.
However, a Cabinet Office spokesperson said in May that its open standards policy was “not set in stone” and that the UK definition of an open standard was up for consultation – throwing the whole issue once again into confusion.
Last week, a written response to a question from Conservative MP Mike Weatherley, published on Hansard, helped to throw light on the issue.
Maude’s response seems to indicate that the UK government recognises that open standards should be RF, and confirms its commitment to open source technology. In a further exchange between the two MPs, Maude added that “open source solutions present significant opportunities for improved value for money and the stimulation of a more competitive ICT environment.”
Open source experts have welcomed the response. “I hesitate to claim this as a victory for good sense, given the twists and turns of the previous year, but it does seem promising,” said blogger Glyn Moody. “Assuming that we don’t see another U-turn, it is also impressive that a UK Minister can respond to a Parliamentary question with this level of technical savviness: kudos to him and his advisers.”
Maude reiterated the need for cost savings, qualifying his statement by saying that open source would be encouraged where cost is “equal to, or less than, the lifetime costs of proprietary software”.
The government claimed in its ICT cost-cutting strategy in March that it could save millions of pounds worth of public money through encouraging small business innovation and embracing open source technologies.
Francis Maude admitted at the time that the government had wasted vast amounts of money on ineffective and duplicate IT systems, and promised to “end the oligopoly of big business supplying government IT by breaking down contracts into smaller, more flexible projects”.
However, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the BBC last week revealed that most government departments still spend the lion’s share of their IT budgets on software from big-name vendors, such as Microsoft and Oracle, rather than seeking cheaper open source alternatives.
Most people in the United States view TikTok as a Chinese influence tool a poll…
UK regulator confirms it is investigating whether OnlyFans is doing enough to prevent children accessing…
Dismissed staff file complaint with a US labor board, and allege Google unlawfully terminated their…
Elon Musk dismisses two senior Tesla executives, plus the entire division that runs Tesla's Supercharger…
Eight newspaper publishers in the US allege Microsoft and OpenAI used their millions of their…
US judge sentences Binance founder, Changpeng Zhao, to four months in prison for ignoring money…
View Comments
It is nice to see a confirmation of this sort of excellent policy.
The BBC's FoI response inevitably showed expenditure streams still going to the embedded vendors, as these vendors go to considerable lengths to ensure the cost of exit from their technology is high; forcing the vendors to comply with open standards, such as ODF for office documents, is a starting point to lowering the costs of exit.
About time this gets cleared up. I agree with Chris's comment regarding the anti-competitive 'lock in' of the embedded vendors. Worse though is the attitude of the individuals who specify technology choices. Where does 'poor choices' end and 'outright corruption' begin?
The public purse is in a mess and every pound wasted on overpriced tech choices is a pound that is not available to use to ensure the vulnerable in our society are looked after effectively.
There is much value in talking to make sure the right decision is made, however there is also value in actually making a decision. This being a decision based on best value to the taxpayer, not best value to the incumbent suppliers.
Use of Open Source does of course have its place. But politicians need to understand building solutions in open source is not a "cheap" option. We have lost sight of what Government really need which is the best value with minimal lock into to expensive build and support for future change. The dominant vendors with their powerful ecosystems of suppliers have abused their monopoly. Government in past years have allowed it to happen by being the “dumb” buyer.
Francis Maude is right to put open source into context by saying by saying that “open source would be encouraged where cost is “equal to, or less than, the lifetime costs of proprietary software”. The implication of this is Government must become the intelligent buyer in order to make such assessments. To achieve this needs someone to take such responsibility. My experience to date suggest this is not yet working yet it us vital to achieve the significant saving that must be achieved. It is also the mechanism where UK technology innovations get their chance to be heard and used if appropriate.
I represent such a new technology (if interested see this white paper http://bit.ly/pV8Nmn ) Despite well proven in savings over 10 years in build and operational efficiency used at both UK Sport in grant management and BOA in medical claims no one from government has investigated? I always get a friendly welcome, lots of “understanding” but no one takes responsibility? I hope Francis Maude is listening!
This isn't just about open source. Use of standards in software is usually a good idea for a whole host of business reasons, plug and play being one of them. Insisting on standards being Royalty Free helps standards adoption, allows us by both open source and proprietary software. This new rule will result in a wave of overdue retooling in the government software supply chain - Well done to Mr Maude and his team!