The Digital Crossroad

? · english · español

The Digital Crossroad

Introduction

Way back, we heard that in our country we always expected that the State would solve our problems, and we stopped participating once the vote was cast. That lead us to pose the following question: "What is each of us doing to stop being mere spectators and to become actors so that things improve?"
The proposal presented here arose from an effort to answer this question. Its objective is to show the State a better way to carry out the computerization of its structure in the medium and long term.
Although this might seem of little general interest, the appropriate implementation of this strategy cannot only encourage local development and technological independence, but also allow the State to reduce drastically its expenses, making possible to allocate these savings to more urgent problems.

Abstract

Nowadays the information is stored digitally, that's to say, in a "digital box". We access this information by means of computers, therefore they are the access door to the room where the digital box is.
The question then is who controls the operation of the computer (i.e. the door's key) while it manipulates this information. If that key is in the hands of software and hardware companies, the control of information is lost, and consequently the market become fragmented, monopolies arise and money flows out of the country, among other problems.
There are ways of losing control of the computer operation at each level of its functioning, and consequently of losing control of the information it manipulates. If we want to break this cycle of dependency and to solve the problems mentioned above, we need to regain the control of the operation of the computer.
Here, we analyze the necessary conditions that, to our criterion, would allow us to meet this objective, along with the advantages of using tools that satisfy those conditions. Finally, we will show the effects of the mentioned problems on the State and their consequences for their citizens.

Digital information in today's world

Nowadays, the contents of a book, a song, an image, a video, a document, etc. can be transformed into a digital file using a computer. In other words, it is possible to copy the information stored in traditional format to a digital counterpart and, consequently, use a computer to manipulate (i.e. to reproduce, modify, read, send, etc.) this digitized information.
The advantage of using the digital file instead of the original format lies in the speed and ease whereupon this information can be manipulated. For example, today a person with a computer can write, publish and print his or her own book, and even distribute it if he or she has access to the Internet. And all this can be done without a middle man and with a very small cost in time and money, compared with traditional methods.
Due to these advantages, the digitalization of information is being used increasingly in all areas of human activity, and this sustained growth has accelerated since the appearance of the Internet, which allows us to send all that digitized information to any other computer in the planet connected to Internet.
With the Internet, computers have become the telephones of the 21st century: before, one would use a telephone to exchange sounds with other people; today, one can use computers to exchange any kind of information in digital format (text, sound, music, images, videos, etc.) with anybody in the world connected to the Internet.
Nowadays, digitized information has achieved even greater preponderance than information in "traditional" formats and its inherent advantages cause a continual expansion of its uses. The State is not detached from these changes and has used the advantages that digital information offers to improve its operation. Thus, in the course of time, the use of computers in almost all government agencies has increased to the extent that the State has become dependent on this technology for its functioning. This dependency is critical because it ends up affecting its citizens.

Computers and digital information

A very significant point is that a computer is needed in order to access digital information. You can see this, for example, in the case of a text document stored in a file within a floppy disk: for the recipient of this floppy disk to be able to read the document's content, he or she will need a computer to access the floppy disk, decode the file, and display the information on the screen. That is to say: the digital information is not accessible without a computer to decode and process it.
In summary, computers are tools that not only allow us to make calculations, control other devices and manipulate digital information in amazing ways, but they are also essential for the retrieval of information that we store on them; they are in fact the access door to the digitally stored information.

Computer inner workings and control of information

When somebody wants to control the access to information stored in traditional formats (for example, a book), it is simply a matter of locking the physical means in which the information is stored in a secure place. All what you need afterwards is to control the access to that place's key.
When trying to access digitally stored information, there is a new, intermediate "door", the computer, which acts as a "reading device". This is why, in order to control the access to digital information, you need to control the key to the "intermediate door" as well. This means that you need to know exactly how this "reading device" manipulates digital information flowing through it. Control of digital information depends, then, on the control of the inner workings of the computer while it is processing that information.
Within a computer [6], we can identify four levels through which information must flow as it is processed:

Hardware

Operating System (Software)

Data Formats (Software)

Applications (Software)

The problem of losing control of the computer operation arises when the inner workings at any of these levels is hidden from the user. That is to say, when it is not possible to know for certain what the computer is doing at a given time and, this way, we do not have control over the information the computer is manipulating.
This problem is even more critical if we consider that somebody built and/or programmed the computer, and that such person or organization has the complete blueprints and, therefore, the control in its hands. So, although we don't have control, somebody has it, and we don't know who.
I order to avoid losing control over the digital information while it is manipulated by a computer, we have to prevent the hiding of the operation of any such levels. And, in this way, we can verify that the computers do what they are supposed to do. What is needed in order to do such monitoring at every level?

Hardware: In order to verify the exact operation at this level, it is necessary to know the design of the electronic components (integrated circuits) and their interface specifications (how the components interact with each other). Unfortunately, at this moment, the integrated circuits design blueprints are, in great extent, secret. A partial solution to this dilemma is to take advantage of the fact that data exchange between components is done using standard protocols, that is, the external interfaces have open specifications. If we also consider the fact that there is not a single company controlling the entire design and production of computer hardware components, we can reach a reasonable trade-off which does not completely eliminate the problem but makes the conditions that lead to loss of control harder to occur.

Operating System: This level controls the way applications use the hardware. It is the key to access the computer resources. In order to verify the inner workings at this level, it is essential to know its design blueprint, that is, its source code.

Data Formats: These are the languages used to code digital information. A format whose specifications are not open forces us to depend on a particular, closed application to access the information stored in that closed language (because if there was an open application that could read that format, then this format would be open). As a consequence, the control of the information is lost in two levels simultaneously. To avoid this situation, we have to use data formats whose specifications are open.

Applications: These are the programs through which the users access the resources offered by the computer. Just as it happens at the Operating System level, in order to verify the inner workings of an application it is necessary to have access to its source code.

In the previous analysis there is a common element: in order to be able to verify the inner workings at each level, the availability of the design specifications at that level is a necessary condition. Nevertheless, present software and hardware is of such complexity and magnitude that a complete army of monitors would be needed to perform this task in a reasonable time. A group of specialists is not enough.
To ensure that we have enough monitors we have to allow unrestricted access to the design information at each level. That is, to release that information by making its design specifications public. Let everybody see them and review them!
In practice, in order to verify the operation of something, we must know its design specifications. But, more importantly, we have to use it in real everyday conditions to make sure that it works properly. It doesn't do any good to have the public blueprints of something if we can't test its functioning. For this reason, to achieve a real verification, there must also be free use [7].
With these conditions in place, we are allowed to verify the operation of the computer, but we are not yet allowed to fully control it. Being able to detect an error at some level is not very useful if we can't modify it and fix it. Therefore, free modification is also required to have real control over the computer operation.
Wrapping up, to fully control digital information handled by a computer the following conditions are essential:

Design Specifications Availability at every level. In the case of hardware, at least the component's interface specification must be known and the hardware components must be made by independent companies. This doesn't give us a complete control of hardware inner workings, but is the lesser of two evils.

Public Specifications and Free Use of software as well as of hardware blueprints. This enables us to truly supervise the computer operation in all its levels.

Free Modification to be able to fix detected errors.

Consequences of loss of control of computer operation

Failure to meet any of the mentioned conditions at any level is enough to lose control of the computer and the digital information it handles. Let's see some examples and its consequences.
When free modification is not available, the user depends on a specific software or hardware manufacturer to implement any improvements or repairs. As a result, a technological dependence towards a specific manufacturer arises. This dependence prevents us from relying on alternative manufacturers or even our own resources for repairs. In the case of the State, that means that the computer systems operation and maintenance become technologically dependent on a bunch of software and hardware vendors.
When design specifications are not available, problems appear in every level:

At the Hardware level, it is simply not possible to know if the product is doing exclusively what the manufacturer states. There is no way to guarantee that it is not doing something else.

At the Data Format level, unknown design specifications (that is, closed proprietary formats) mean that the information stored in such formats can only be decoded correctly by the format's creator. Therefore, once information is stored using a closed format, in order to access that information again we depend on closed applications provided by the format's manufacturer. This "information kidnap" is used by software manufacturing companies as a tool to fragment the market, that is, creating isolated areas from which its clients cannot escape and competitors cannot enter. It is a way to keep clients captive that encourages monopolies and allows companies to force clients to "upgrade" to newer products by periodically changing data formats and by creating the "need" for new applications to access their old data. Moreover, this information kidnap can also have long term implications, because there is no way to guarantee that in, say, 50 years the original closed format manufacturer still exists and then access to the information might be compromised. For the State, this is really a serious problem due to the volume of information handled, the long term that information must be kept and the interaction needs between different agencies.

At the Operating System (OS) level the problem becomes critical, because the OS is the program that controls the computer resources (hard disk reads and writes, Internet access, printing, etc.). Every application must send data to the OS in order to store it in a file or to send it through the network. If design specifications are not available there is no way to know exactly what the OS is doing with the user's information. There is nothing to prevent the OS manufacturer from installing secret "back doors" to allow unauthorized control of the computer and access to the information it stores. And he can do this with impunity since there is no way to control it for lack of access to blueprints. There is also nothing to prevent the OS manufacturer from inserting special routines to discriminate against other manufacturers applications (level 4) to cause them to perform inefficiently or deliberately wrong. This unfair competition favors the OS manufacturers and increases market distortions that allow the appearance of monopolies.

At the Applications level there are two kinds of problems. The first one is directly related to closed formats, because for a format to remain closed it must be decoded and used by a Closed Application. Therefore, closed applications and formats go hand in hand to generate the kind of market fragmentation and users captivity mentioned above. The second problem is related to another issue discussed in the previous paragraph, but applied to this level: If the design specifications are not available, there is no way of knowing the details of the program operation. Nothing prevents the manufacturer from inserting routines that allow the program to send and retrieve user's data through the Internet without notice. Again, this can be done with complete impunity just because there is no way to verify the program details.

Without verifications a piece of software or hardware is not reliable, both from security in access of information and stability of operation points of view. This lack of reliability leads to risks and extra costs. For the State, an insecure piece of software used to manage citizens private, personal data is totally unacceptable because it is risking people's privacy, not to mention the case of classified information referring to national security issues. In other critical areas, such as vote counting, software cannot be unstable and unreliable because those problems help generate the conditions for the destruction or manipulation of information.
In summary, when any of the discussed conditions is not met, the control over the computer is lost. When the control is in the manufacturer's hands, it is used to fragment the market, generate captive customers, avoid free competition, create technological dependency and limit access to digital information.
The users find themselves trapped in a vicious circle that they cannot escape and they are forced to buy new products from the same manufacturer, just to be able to access once again their own work stored in digital format.
For the State the problem is even worse since the cost of licenses generates a money transfer to foreign companies that could be avoided; besides, by using proprietary applications (mandatory or otherwise) to exchange digital information with its citizens, the State extends the vicious circle to all citizens and in fact becomes the manufacturers' accomplice.

Is it possible to regain control of the computer?

The way to break free from this vicious circle of technological dependency is to use products satisfying the three conditions enumerated above: 1) Available Specifications, 2) Public Specifications and Free Use, and 3) Free Modification at every single level (Hardware, OS, Formats and Applications)
Products meeting those criteria have already existed for a long time [5] and even have their own name. In the case of software programs (levels 2 and 4), that name is Free Software. For Data Formats (level 3), they are called Open Data Format and, if they are also a recognized standard, Open Standard Data Format. Regarding a piece of hardware or hardware interface (level 1), the names Open Hardware and Open Interface, respectively, are used. If the interface is also a recognized standard, it is then called Open Standard Interface.
The use of these open tools guarantees the user the control of the operation of the computer and the access to the digital information produced with it. That is, the user regains control of his own produced digital work and as a consequence the market fragmentation and captive customer base comes to an end.
In addition to that, open tools allow the obtention of products that are extremely stable and of superior quality. The reason for this lies in the fact that a free product that catches the community attention sooner or later is going to have more eyes, more man-hours, devoted to its design, implementation and verification than its proprietary counterpart. At the beginning, this open project will probably start with a reduced group of enthusiasts, but as time goes by, more people will add their contributions; in the long run, the amount of man-hours invested in the project will surpass any effort a particular software manufacturer can make, simply because the number of interested people in the users community is larger. This is not a theory; it is a proven fact from real life.
Thanks to free modification, open products have a high evolution speed that enables them to adapt more quickly to technological changes. For the same reason, they can be modified to work in a variety of operating systems. An open operating system, for example, can be adapted to work in small personal computers as well as in huge supercomputers, that way being a scalable product that allows integration to a variety of systems, from the most simple to the most complex. This integration capability simplifies the use of systems of different complexity, allowing economy of effort and money.
Moreover, the free use property allows saving money that would be otherwise spent in licenses, avoiding the drainage of this capital abroad, and thus leading to the possibility of using it for issues of greater priority.
Finally, when the vicious circle is broken, we regain the technological independence associated with computer systems, and with it the possibility of using our knowledge and capabilities to solve the needs of the State and of our society. In fact, the State could then use the local workforce to develop its projects and in that way to favor our own technological development.

Conclusion

The dependency created by the loss of control of digital information is not a minor problem; it is considered a state matter by several governments, the European Union and China among them. The consequences of this dependency on the State involve its own security as well as its economy.
Open tools (Free Software, Open Formats and Open Hardware) allow the recovery of security, prevent money flow to foreign companies and encourage local technological development.
The critical importance of these issues has led governments to move from theory to practice. Countries like France, Brazil, Denmark, Argentina, Peru, Italy, Spain, Australia, Belgium, Colombia, Costa Rica, USA, Portugal and Ukraine already have bills to regulate the use of Free Software in the State [1]. Brazil, Chile, China, France, Korea, Germany, India, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, USA and Venezuela have policies for State agencies to take concrete steps towards the use of Free Software, and the European Union is applying technological development policies through specific programs for free software as well as open hardware [2] [3]
Implementing a free software and hardware policy in the State is not an impossible utopia, but neither is it something that can be done overnight. No doubt it is a mid-term project that requires careful planning and trained people.
The State has the knowledge and means to carry on this project in its Universities. It is just a matter of political willingness.
The State has a crossroad in front of it, and the road it chooses will determine the future of its technological development and independence.

Authors: Marcelo C.Baldi, Fernando A.Cuenca, Daniel F.Moisset
Translation: Fernando A.Cuenca, Beatriz Moisset
Special thanks to: Marcela Moisset, Pablo Moisset, Federico Heinz, Sergio Baldi, Ana María Briñon, Federico Baldi, Azucena Villanueva, Consuelo Moisset, Irene Loewy, Javier Blanco.

More information:
Web page: http://www.proposicion.org.ar
Similar documents: http://www.proposicion.org.ar/doc/fundamentos.html
Frequent asked questions about Free Software use on the State: http://www.proposicion.org.ar/doc/freegov-faq.html
Latest version of this document: http://www.proposicion.org.ar/doc/encrucijada.html.en
Contact us: e-mail

Copyright
Copyright © 1999-2001 Marcelo C. Baldi
Copyright © 1999-2001 Fernando A. Cuenca
Copyright © 1999-2001 Daniel F. Moisset
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
GNU Free Documentation License:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

Footnotes:

[1] Legislation on the use of Free Software within the Government:

Argentina: · Bill 5613-D-00 (Dragan). Source: CNET
· Bill 904-D-02 (Dragan, Becerra & Bertone). Source: F.Heinz
· Bill 1280-D-04 (Cantini). Source: F.Heinz

Buenos Aires City: · Bill 1416-D-02 (Caram). Source: www.cedom.gov.ar.
· Bill 1499-03 (Maiorkevich). Source: www.cedom.gov.ar.
· Bill 2801-04 (Schifrin & others). Source: www.cedom.gov.ar.

Buenos Aires Prov.: · Declaración F-210/02-03 (Conde). Source: Proposición,
· Bill E-135/02-03 (Conde). Source: www.senado-ba.gov.ar,

Jujuy Prov.: · Bill 207-D-2002 (Fernandes). Source: L.T.Wayar,

Misiones Prov.: · Bill D-22034/03 (Sosa & Kornuta). Source: diputadosmisiones.gov.ar.

Santa Fe Prov.: · Ley Nº 12360 (D´Ambrosio & Zogbi). Source: R. Tagliaferri.

La Plata City: · Council Bill 37202 (Frangul, Aricci & Viñes). Source: P. Lorente,

Mar del Plata City: · Ordinance 17584 (Cordeau & Sanz). Source: P. Duthey.

Porteña City: · Ordinance 1275/2004 (Peretti, Rossotto & Sadone). Source: D. Spada,

Rosario City: · Ordinance Nº 7787/2004 (Javkin). Source: F. Heinz

Santa Fe City: · Ordinance Nº 11063 (Simoniello, Henn, Giménez & Piazza). Source: N. César,

Australia: · Financial Management and Accountability (Anti-Restrictive Software Practices) Amendment Bill 2003 - No. 03160, 2003 (Greig). Source: Parliament of Australia.

ACT: · Government Procurement (Principles) Guidelines Amendment Law 2003 (Dundas) (p. 1071-1077). Source: Computerworld.

South Australia: · State Supply (Procurement of Software) Amendment Bill 2003 (Gilfillan). Draft 2nd Reading Speech. Source: E. Chaparro.

Belgium: · Proposition de loi n° 2-1607/1 - 9/4/2003 (Istasse). Source: AEL.
· Proposition de loi 0244/001 - 14/7/2003 (Mayeur). Source: IDA.
· Proposition de loi n° 3-216/1 - 30/9/2003 (Roelants du Vivier, Defraigne). Source: AEL.

Bruxelles-Capitale: · Proposition d'ordonnance A-287/1-01/02 (Moock, Bultot) - Adoption de la proposition. Ref: AEL. Sources: R. Di Cosmo, Proposición.

Brazil: · Projeto de Lei 2269/1999 (Pinheiro). Text: CIPSGA.
· Projeto de Lei 3051/2000 (Wanderer).
· Projeto de Lei 4275/2001 (Bittencourt).
· Projeto de Lei 7120/2002 (Miranda).
· Projeto de Lei 2152/2003 (Alves).
· Decreto de 29/10/2003: Institui Comitês Técnicos do Comitê Executivo do Governo Eletrônico e dá outras providências (Presidente Lula Da Silva). Source: ITI.

Est. do Paraná: · Lei Nº 14058 de 12/09/2003, Source: E. Chaparro.
· Lei Nº 14195 de 12/11/2003, Source: E. Chaparro.

Est. de São Paulo: · Resolução CC-52, de 23/06/2004, Source: softwarelibre.gov.br.

Est. do Rio
Grande do Sul: · Lei 11871 (Bohn Gass) de 19/12/2002, Source: Assembléia Legislativa.

Amparo: · Lei sobre a utilização de programas e sistemas de computador abertos (Dimas Marchi).
Text: Projeto de Lei 57/2001. Sources: Jornal A Tribuna, Linux On

Campinas: · Lei 11113/2001 (Santini).

Porto Alegre: · Aprovado Projeto de Lei sobre Software Livre (Bonumá).
Text: Projeto de lei 053/00, Substitutivo ao projeto de lei 053/00. Source: Software Livre-RS

Recife: · Lei 16639/2001 (Borges). Source: Pernambuco.com

São Carlos: · Lei 12883/2001. Sources: Software Livre-RS, Plantão info, Conectiva

Solonópole: · Lei 614/2001. Source: Revista do Linux

Viçosa: · Lei 1472/2001 (Ferrarez). Text: Projeto de lei 049/2001.
Source: Software Livre-RS.

Colombia: · Proyecto de Ley 83 de 2002 Cámara (Petro, Borja Díaz, Ortiz, Silva, Zárrate, Avellaneda, Cáceres, Córdoba, Jumí, Arenas ). Source: Colibrí.

Costa Rica: · Proyecto de Ley 15191 (Chinchilla M.). Source: E. Herrera Balharry.

Denmark: · Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om en strategi for udbredelse af open source-programmel i Danmark.

France: · Proposition de Loi 117 (Laffitte, Trégouet, Cabanel). Forum.
· Proposition de Loi 2437 (Le Déaut, Paul, Cohen). Source: lwn.
· Décret 2001-737 (Premier ministre Jospin).

Germany: · 152th Parliament Session (2.15.2001): Zehn-Punkte-Programm "Internet für alle" zügig umsetzen.

Italy: · Disegno di legge S.1188 (Cortiana). Text: Ass. Software Libero. Sources: Mediamente.
· Proposta di legge 2544 (Folena). Text: Bologna Free Software Forum.

Reg. Toscana: · Legge regionale n. ?? - 21/1/2004 (Guidi?). Sources: Ansa.it, IDA.

Prov. di Pescara: · Mozione approvata il 7/5/2002 (Ceccomancini, D'Annunzio). Source: Bologna Free Software Forum,

Firenze: · Mozione approvata il 11/7/2001 (Papini, Basosi, Menci, Pettini, Malavolti). Source: CNET, Punto Informatico, InterLex

Lodi: · Mozione approvata il 18/3/2002 (Ugetti). Source: Ass. Software Libero,

Peru: · Proyecto de ley 1609/2001 (Villanueva Nuñez). Ref.: Congreso de la República del Perú
· Proyecto de ley 2344/2002 (Estrada Perez). Ref.: Congreso de la República del Perú
· Proyecto de ley 2485/2002 (Villanueva Nuñez, Rodrich Ackerman). Ref.: Congreso de la República del Perú
· Proyecto de ley 3030/2002 (Gonzáles Reinoso). Ref.: Congreso de la República del Perú
· Proyecto de ley 8251/2003 (Villanueva Nuñez & others). Ref.: Congreso de la República del Perú Source: ASIC.

Portugal: · Projecto de lei N.º 126/IX (Drago, Louçã, Teixeira Lopes). Sources: gildot, Ansol.
· Projecto de Resolução 255/IX/2 (Dias, Soares, Mesquita, Machado, Novo, Filipe, Sousa). Source: PCP.

Spain: · Proposición de Ley 122/000217 (Puigcercós i Boixassa). Source: HispaLINUX.
· Proposición de Ley 122/000126 (ERC). Source: R. Santos.

Andalucía: · Proposición no de Ley en Pleno 6-02/PNLP-000117 (G.p. Socialista).
· Decreto 72/2003, de 18 de marzo. Source: HispaLINUX.

Catalunya: · Proposició de llei tram. 202-00148/06 (Vigo, Benach, Huguet).
Text (spanish): HispaLINUX, Sources: ERC, HispaLINUX.

Islas Canarias: · Proposición no de ley: PNL-115/2001 (G.P. Coalición Canaria - CC). Ref.: Parlamento de Canarias. Source: CNET.

Sant Bartomeu
del Grau: · Moción aprobada el 12/03/03. Source: Web de Sant Bartomeu del Grau

Villaviciosa: · Moción aprobada el 27/11/02 (Izquierda Asturiana). Source: La Nueva España.

Ukraine: · Bill 2065/2002 (Oliynik). Source: Newsforge.

Uruguay:

San José: · Resolución aprobada el 27/6/03. Sources: UYLUG, E. Chaparro.

USA:

Oregon: · House Bill 2892/2003 (Barnhart). Sources: E. Chaparro, The Register.

Texas: · Bill SB 1579 (Carona) - Legislative Session: 78(R). Source: Linux Today.

Venezuela: · Decreto 3390 (Presidente Hugo Chávez Frías). Ref: Gaceta Oficial. Sources: El Universal.com, La Red.
· Proyecto de Ley 354/2004 (Tascón Gutiérrez, Varela Rangel, Pérez Cristancho, Piñango). Sources: RNV, Alfa-Redi.

[2] Use of Free Software within the Government:

Argentina:

MECyT: · Coordinación General de Informática y Telecomunicaciones (CGIyT). Source: R. Pluss.

Presidencia: · Ámbito del Software Libre en el Estado (ASLE). Source: Secretaria de Medios de la Presidencia.
· Sitio Web de la Presidencia de la Nación. Source: Secretaria de Medios de la Presidencia.

ONTI: · Sitio de Divulgación de Software Libre en la Administración Pública Argentina.

Buenos Aires City: · DISPOSICIÓN N° 53: Determínase la utilización de los denominados "Software Libres" en dependencias del G.C.A.B.A. - DGSINF. Fuente: M. Olivera.

Formosa: · El Sistema de Gestión Penal del Poder Judicial funciona en Linux. Source: Hipatia.

Tucumán: · Dirección Provincial de Vialidad migra a Linux. Source: Planeta Linux Argentina.

Mun. de Morón: · The Council of Morón City has migrated to Software Libre. Source: SOLAR.

Australia:

AGIMO: · AGIMO Open Source Software.
· A Guide to Open Source Software for Australian Government Agencies

Belgium:

· Le Conseil des Ministres a approuvé les directives et recommandations aux services publics fédéraux pour l'usage de standards, de logiciels d'application et de logiciels libres, faits sur mesure. Source: IDA.

FEDICT: · Directives et recommandations pour l'usage de standards ouverts et/ou spécifications ouvertes dans les administrations fédérales. Source: IDA.

Brazil: · Portal de Software Livre do Governo Federal

ITI: · Planejamento Estratégico 2003-2004. Diretrizes, Objetivos e Ações Prioritárias - Câmara Técnica de Implementação do Software Livre. Source: ITI.

Paraná: · Projeto Software Livre Paraná

Rio Grande Do Sul: · Projeto Software Livre-RS

Bulgaria:

ISOC.bg: · UNDP Project "Support to e-government initiatives based on the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) at the local (municipality) level in the South-eastern Europe". Sources: IDA, M. Olivera.

Chile:

Aduana: · Proyecto Aries - Capa Caliente. Source: Barrapunto.

China:

Academy of Sciences: · Red Flag Linux. Source: New York Times.

Denmark:

Teknologirådet: · Open-source software in e-government. Source: Teknologirådet.

European Union:

European Parliament: · Recommendations 24 and 25 (§13.2) in the Report of the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System (A5-0264/2001).

IDA Programme: · Study into the use of open source software in the public sector.
· Pooling Open Source Software. An IDA Feasibility Study.
· The IDA Open Source Migration Guidelines. Source: IDA.
· Open Source Observatory.

IST Programme: · IST Advisory Group (ISTAG). Sources: lwn,
· Free / open source software actions in European programmes.
· European working group on Libre Software
· Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study (FLOSS): Final Report
· Three ROSES Project. Source: IDA
· Consortium for Open Source in the Public Administration (COSPA).

Finland:

Ministry of Finance: · "Recommendation on the Openness of the Code and Interfaces of State Information Systems" (Working Papers 29/2003). Source: IDA.

Turku: · "Report on the suitability of the OpenOffice.org office suite and the Linux operation system as the workstation standard of the City of Turku".
· City Approves Linux Pilot Program. Sources: Linux Today, Turku.

France:

Premier ministre: Commissariat général du Plan:
· "Économie du logiciel: renforcer la dynamique française", Rapport du groupe présidé par Hugues Rougier.
SIG: · Projet AGORA. Sources: B. Thieulin, IDA.

Ministères: De la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'Etat:
· Lettre de mission de M. CARCENAC (Lionel Jospin).
· Message aux participants à la 1ère journée du libre dans les administrations (Michel Sapin).
· Ouverture de la deuxième journée du logiciel libre dans l'administration (Michel Sapin).

De la Justice:
· Le Casier judiciaire national.

De la Culture:
· Le Ministère de la Culture choisit d'utiliser les logiciels libres. Source: MandrakeSoft.

De la Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie:
· Utilisation de Linux par la Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects.
· The French tax authorities choose Linux and select Linbox to deploy 950 servers. Source: Linbox.
Secrétariat d'Etat à l'Industrie:
   Conseil Général des Mines (CGM):
    · Le Projet Mimosa.
    · Le Projet Mioga.

De l'éducation nationale, de la recherche et de la technologie:
   · MandrakeSoft to provide Linux server software to all levels of French government. Source: MandrakeSoft.

De la Défense:
   · The French Ministry of Defence chooses to develop a Linux-based system for optimising security. Sources: IDA, Silicon.fr.

ADAE: · Guide de choix et d'usage des licences de logiciels libres pour les administrations.

SIT du Bas-Rhin: · Architecture du SIT : Présentation Technique.

INRIA: · Les logiciels des projets de l'INRIA.

Internet.gouv.fr: · Pour une administration électronique citoyenne: Méthodes et Moyens (Thierry Carcenac)

Germany:

KBSt: · Letter Nr 2/2000 : Open Source Software in the Federal Administration.. Sources: lwn, linuxtag, internetnews.
· Open Source Software für die Bundesverwaltung .
· A guide to migrating the basic software components on server and workstation computers. Sources: IDA, BMI.

BMWi: · Partner of the BerliOS Proyect.
· GNU Privacy Guard Projekt.
· Open-Source-Software. Ein Leitfaden für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen.

BFF: · Im Intra- und Internet setzt das Bundesamt für Finanzen auf LINUX.
· German Federal Finance Office Chooses Linux. Sources: IDA, CNET News.com.

BMI: · Kooperationsvertrag mit IBM über den Einsatz von Open-Source-Produkten: Schily öffnet die öffentliche Verwaltung für Linux. Sources: The Register, BBC News.

Bayern: · Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung setzt auf Linux. Sources: Golem.de, WorldWatch.

Niedersachsen: · Niedersächsische Polizei rüstet auf Linux um. Ref: Intel's Case Study. Source: Heise Online.

Munich: · Projekt "LiMux - Die IT-Evolution". City of Munich Replaces Windows with Linux. Sources: SuSE, USA Today, The Register.

Schwäbisch
Hall: · Schwäbisch Hall builds IT infrastructure based on SuSE Linux and IBM Servers. Ref: H. Brauner. Sources: SuSE, USA Today, ITworld.com.

India:

C-DAT (former NCST): · IndiX Project. Source: The Economic Times.

Kerala: C-DIT: · Open Source Technology Team.

Italy:

MIT: · "Indagine conoscitiva sul software a codice sorgente aperto nella Pubblica Amministrazione". I Commenti. Sources: J. Garcia, MIT.
· Direttiva del 19/12/03: "Sviluppo ed utilizzazione dei programmi informatici da parte delle pubbliche amministrazioni". Sources: Palazzo Chigi, IDA.

Korea: · The Korean government migrates 120K civil servants to Linux desktop. Sources: HancomLinux, The Register

Malaysia:

MAMPU: · Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Implementation: · Master Plan. Source: Star-Techcentral.com
· Open Source Competency Centre (OSCC).

Mexico:

Presidencia: · Sistema de Internet de la Presidencia de la República

Ciudad de México: · Migración a Software Libre en el gobierno de la Ciudad de México (DF). Sources: diario Reforma, Wired News

Netherlands:

ICTU: · programma Open Standaarden en Open Source Software voor de overheid. Source: IDA.

New Zealand:

E-government Unit: · Open source software: briefing to the Minister of State Services. Sources: STUFF, NZ Herald.

Norway:

Statskonsult: · Åpen programvare. Egnetheten til Linux og annen åpen programvare for statlig forvaltning. (english version). Source: Linux Today.

Bergen: · The city of Bergen is migrating its education and health services to Linux. Source: ZDNet UK.

Pakistan:

MOITT: · IT ministry to train 4000 govt servants, others in Open Source software. Sources: PakTribune.com. HiPakistan.

PSEB: · Open Source Resource Center. Sources: O. Haq, I. Khan.

TReMU: · Task Force For Linux. Source: Linux Journal.

Peru:

INICTEL: · Desarrollo de Sistemas usando Software Libre. Source: L. Bauchwitz.

Philippines:

ASTI: · Implementation of an Open Source System on Workstations and Servers. Source: CVIS.net.

Poland: · Linux in the Ministry of Finance in Poland. Source: www.linuxnews.pl.

Slovenia:

MID: · Policy of the Government of RS for the development, introduction and use of open-source software and solutions. Source: IDA.

South Africa:

NACI: · Open Software & Open Standards in South Africa. A Critical Issue for Addressing the Digital Divide. Source: ITWeb.

GITO: · Government OSS site. Source: ITWeb.
· Using Open Source Software in Government Discussion Document.
· OSS Policy Framework Document. Source: ITWeb.
· Using Open Source Software in South African Government. A proposed strategy. Sources: Tectonic, WorldWatch.

Sweden:

Statskontoret: · Free and open source software feasibility study, (Appendix 1: Extensive survey). Sources: Statskontoret, Linux Today.

Switzerland:

USIC: · Stratégie OSS. Source: IDA.

Spain:

MAP: · Proyecto RHODAS. Source: Barrapunto.

Castilla-La Mancha: · El SESCAM ha optado por el sistema de 'software' libre Linux para la informatización de su red sanitaria. Fuentes: El Mundo, HispaFuentes.

Extremadura: · Proyecto LinEX. Sources: Wired News, HispaLINUX.

Taiwan: · Government plans to implement open source code system. Sources: Taipei Times, The Register, CNET.

Thailand:

NECTEC: · Linux SIS (School Internet Service). Source: Bangkok Post.
· OpenTLE Project. Source: AOSS Report.

United Kingdom: · Open Source Software use within the UK Government. Draft for public consultation. Source: UK GovTalk
· Open Source Software use within the UK Government. The Policy. Source: The Register

USA:

U.S.Courts: · The AOUSC has hired PEC Solutions to migrate the Federal Judiciary's national IT infrastructure to a Linux/Intel platform. Sources: OpenSector.org, Washington Technology, PEC.

Census Bureau: · "State & County QuickFacts" Project. Source: O'Reilly Network

DARPA: CHATS Program: DARPA Sponsored Research (Source: IA&S):
· High Assurance Open-Source Certificate Management System (CMS).
· Code Security Analysis Kit (CoSAK).
· Community-Based Open Source Security (CBOSS). Source: CNET.
· Enhancing ReiserFS In Linux.
· Secure File Sharing Over The Internet Using SFS.
· Secure Auditing for the Linux Kernel.
· Architectural Frameworks for Composable Survivability and Security.
· Security Enhanced Bootstrap for Operating Systems (SEBOS).
· Sardonix Securty Portal,

DISA: · Use of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense. Source: The Register.

NASA: Ames Research Center (ARC):
· "Developing An Open Source Option for NASA Software", Patrick J. Moran.
· Personal Satellite Assistant. Source: LinuxDevices.
· Solar Spectral Flux Radiometer (SSFR). Source: LinuxDevices.

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC):
· The FlightLinux Project.
· The Beowulf Project.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL):
ACL: · The LinuxBIOS Project.

NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS):
· In Nov. 6, 2001 a team at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center finished the transition of the NAIS from Oracle to MySQL. Source: FCW.

NRL: · Analyzing Security Policies for SE Linux.

NSA: · Security-Enhanced Linux

Texas: · Standards Review and Recommendation Publication (SRRPUB09). - Texas Department of Information Resources. Source: Linux Journal.

Largo City: · Public administration use Linux, taxpayers save millions. Sources: NewsForge, Enterprise Linux Today.

Venezuela: · Venezuela's Government Shifts to Open Source Software. Sources: Linux Today, LaRed.com.

MCT: · Libro Amarillo del Software Libre: Uso y Desarrollo en la Administración Pública ( Presentación, Parte 1A, Parte B, Parte 1C ).

Vietnam: · Decision No. 235/QD-TTg of March 2, 2004 approving the overall Project on Application and Development of Open-Source Software in Vietnam in the 2004-2008 Period (Pham Gia Khiem - Deputy Prime Minister).

MOST: · Viet Nam Open Source Software (VOSS). Sources: IDA, Asia-OSS.

[3] Open Hardware within the Government:

European Union: · European Space Agency launches free 32 bit Sparc-like core. Sources: EETIMES, slashdot.

[4] Free Software in Education:

4.1 Primary and Secondary Education:

SCHOOLFORGE:

· Schoolforge Members

· Linux Case Studies

· Schoolforge Link Manegement: Schoolforge Link - by Country.

4.2 University Resolutions about OSS/Free Software:

Argentina:

UNSa: · Resolución R-086-03. Source: D. Saravia.
· Resolución R-087-03. Source: D. Saravia.

Peru:

UNI: · Resolución Rectoral Nº 0429. Source: C. M. Cárdenas Fernández.

Spain:

UAM: · Claustro Universitario 2001 - Inciso nº 8 de la Orden del día: "Principios de conducta informática institucional". Source: AFSL.

USA:

UB: · Resolution for University support of Open Software and Standars. Source: UB Faculty Senate Computer Services Committee.

[5] Free Development Projects:

Software · GNU Project
· Open Source Initiative

Hardware · OpenCores.org

Networks · FreeNetworks.org

[6] Brief description of the way a computer works: a computer is made of two important elements: the first one is the hardware, that is, the electronic devices one sees directly, like the monitor or the hard drive. The second is the software, that is the instructions or programs that tell the different pieces of hardware how to behave to carry on a particular function. Designing a program is a complex task that requires many man-hours and much training. That is why most computer users need programs already made by specialists. Hardware and software work together; neither one nor the other is useful in isolation. Software, in turn, can be classified in two levels: Applications and Operating System. Applications are programs that allow people to use the computer, like Internet browsers, word processors, CD players, games, etc. All these applications need access to hardware resources to perform their tasks, like showing a character on the screen, saving a file in the hard drive, or sending a document through the network. The program in charge of performing, allowing and controlling that access to the hardware is the Operating System. Each time a program needs to store information in a certain device (a floppy disk, the hard drive, a CD Rom, etc.) it has to use a "language" or "protocol" that allows it to code that information in a digital file. This codification protocol is called "Format".

[7] Actually, the minimum necessary condition is "unrestricted use for test cases". The problem is that this condition, in practical terms, cannot be distinguished from free use. This is because in order to be able to verify a piece of software, it is necessary to use it in real production conditions. Therefore, it is valid to say that a program is being tested, regardless of whether is being used for production purposes or for any task. That is, no matter the use of a program, it can always be considered that it is being used for verifying purposes. In practice, "unrestricted use for test cases" cannot be differentiated from "free use". The same reasoning applies to Open Hardware.

Hosted by GrULiC Apr. 2, 2001 - version 0.9 - Last Update: Sunday, 30-May-2004 15:41:21 ART