Describe AU-OSEG Policy here.... ... in as much detail as you like
Who is the target audience for this policy?
- Federal government procurement policy officers in all departments and agencies.
- Policy officers in NOIE.
- Industry development officers in the federal and state research and industry development departments.
- National Competition Council.
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
- Procurement policy officers in all state government departments and agencies
- Industry policy and competition officers in various industry bodies, MTIA, VECCI, Minerals Council of Australia etc.
What are the aims of this policy? (What are we trying to achieve?)
- To provide a simple template which can underpin each target organisation's own policy specifically on FOSS but also in the broader context of software acquisition, software IP and industry development.
- Increase in competition in the Australian software sector.
- Increase in local industry development.
- Increase in the number of local jobs in ICT.
- Increase in the potential for ICT exports.
- Decrease in the level of foreign ICT debt through import replacement.
What is the scope of this policy?
Can we source related policies on FOSS from other countries?
- The Japanese government has extensive documentation on this. Check with Ian Oi if he is happy to provide his translations.
- Specifically the one on "Investigation Report on the Current Utilisation Status and Introduction Guideline of Open Source Software Issued by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) of Japan on 15 August 2003"
- The Danish governemnt policy on FOSS
- The European Community IDA documents
- The UK government's expert group on open sourcing government software IP
- The South African government's policy on adopting FOSS
- The Brazilian government's policy on adopting FOSS
- The German government's policy on using FOSS for local industry development.
How do we increase the competition?
- Firstly, why do we want to increase the competition?
- insert breakdown of cost differentials between horizontal-market software and hardware over the past decade.
- Hardware has improved (in cost/function terms) by a factor of 1000.
- Software has not (show the sums here)
- This denotes that there has been over the last 10 years at least, no substantive competition in terms of horizontal-market software
- Australian consumers are therefore not receiving the benefits that a competitive software landscape would deliver, unlike the hardware example where they are.
- What are the policies which can achieve this?
- Letting all consumers know if the broader range of choices, open source choices.
- Helping some of these options overcome their natural dis-advantage in the market -- helping even the playing field. Open source has lacked marketing muscle for instance. This can be overcome without any spending.
- Helping some of these options achieve a critical mass. In most market software segments, a platform/program can attain the benefits of size by hitting a couple of milestones, namely 10% and 30%. Open source server platforms are already well past the first milestone, but not yet fully over the second. Open source desktop and productivity platforms are not yet past the first. Anything which can be done to push these over the critical-mass threshold will greatly add to the recognition of these platforms, making them broadly acceptable. This in turn will add considerable competition to an un-competive market.
- We need to show that it's in each constituent grooup's best interests to assist in increasing software competition.
How do we increase local industry development?
- Firstly, can we show categorically that Australia is lagging in local ICT industry development?
- Can we show that software is one area where we have a solid chance of injecting momentum and building the industry?
- Can we size the current open source industry sector? Can we determine how many players and the market composition/demographics?
- Can we show what an increase of adoption will mean to these players?