Governments should avoid creating islands of OS development
There is no such thing as any island of OS development. By its nature, its open, hence no island tag could stick. It might be quiet, idle, -- but it can't be an island at all.
as instead work with large OS efforts "with legs.
Some like legs, others like the face, others the personality. Some like long-legs, yet my favorite toast is to two-legged women.
If a project has any pair of legs, it has legs. Two people or one person can move mountains.
Western PA is a scholastic football hotbed. All our kids do NOT only need to play football just because that is where the action is.
Governments could contribute back to OS developments (modules, bug fixes, feature additions) with e-democracy technology for example, then you'd have a dynamic engine of development.
I think that is a stretch if it is a prediction. COULD, SHOULD -- but not slam dunk.
There was a lot of buzz after 2000 about electronic vote machines, lots of legs. Gov got into the fray. But, the engine needed a 'distributor' and a 'transmission.'
This would probably help NGOS and companies in this space as well, because as far as I can tell most e-democracy "profits" come from technical assistance and integration of tools not the sale of software itself. (Disagree with me please: email@example.com
Most e-democracy "profits" come while being a waiter, small-business owner who sells ice-cream cones, professor, or candle-stick maker. My quality of life is not like that of Beruit, etc. The profits come from moment to moment opportunities and the calmness of the week, month and years.
It is hard to "capitalize on democracy" -- or "profit on it." We profit from it.
Democracies Online Newswire - http://dowire.org
Headlines from top blogs: http://dowire.org/feeds
Also see this amazing table:
I am interested in what models actually work for sustained OS development in the public sector. Who coordinates? How are project funded?
Without a creative "hub" it is hard for me to see how most governments can justify their involvement/contribution of the code/modules they develop back into an OS effort. Governments should avoid creating islands of OS development as instead work with large OS efforts "with legs." Governments could contribute back to OS
developments (modules, bug fixes, feature additions) with e-democracy
technology for example, then you'd have a dynamic engine of development. This would probably help NGOS and companies in this space as well, because as far as I can tell most e-democracy "profits" come from technical assistance and integration of tools not the sale of software itself. (Disagree with me please:
Open Source Observatory re-launched
The European Commission's Open Source Observatory (OSO)
http://europa.eu.int/ida/oso/ is a clearinghouse of information
related to free/libre/open source software in the public sector, and
is intended to promote and spread the use of best practices in
Europe. The OSO is part of the EC's IDA (Interchange of Data between
Administrations) programme, and ultimately aims to provide a
comprehensive overview of open source software policies and
activities in the public sector, especially in current and future EU
The OSO had been inactive for a short period but has now started up
again and we welcome you to visit the renewed site at:
We also invite you to send in news items, announcements for events
and other stories related to open source and of interest to public
administrations. Please e-mail them to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are interested in receiving the monthly Open Source News
Roundup, please subscribe
email@example.com?subject=Subscribe - IDA Open Source News Roundup.