Government open-source policies around the world, 2000–2010: a survey
Government open-source policy took many forms: procurement advice, proposed legislation, requirements for public agencies, and programs intended to develop skills or software. The Center for Strategic and International Studies survey, published April 16, 2010, organized government actions by jurisdiction, responsible branch or agency, action, date, and status. Reading those fields together matters: a proposal to require open source and an approved recommendation to consider it describe different public decisions.
What the survey records
The CSIS tables separate national policies from state and local measures. Their action labels include Mandatory, Preference, Advisory, and RD, the latter used for research and development activities. Their status fields distinguish Approved, Proposed, and Failed, while some entries also use Expired. A status is the survey's recorded outcome, rather than a statement that a proposal remains before a legislature. A national heading also does not make every entry a national law: the responsible institution and the description identify what happened.
The distinctions become concrete in the descriptions. Advice could ask agencies to compare licensing models; a preference could favor open source under specified conditions; a mandate could require its use or source-code availability. Research entries also covered training, demonstration facilities, and assessments. These are descriptions of the measures in the CSIS survey, not interchangeable names for software adoption. A failed bill could coexist with an approved training program in the same country, and a preference could include exceptions.
Representative measures across regions
| Government | Branch or agency | Action | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denmark | Executive | Advisory | June 2003 | Approved |
| Portugal | Parliament | Mandatory | Oct. 2003 | Failed |
| Brazil | Executive / National Institute of IT | Advisory | Nov. 2003 | Approved |
| Peru | Legislative | Advisory | Oct. 2005 | Approved |
| Australia | Tax Office | Advisory | Feb. 2004 | Approved |
| U.S. | Office of Management and Budget | Advisory | July 2004 | Approved |
| Japan | Information Technology Promotion Agency | RD | April 2008 | Approved |
| U.S. | Department of Defense | Advisory | 2006 | Approved |
Denmark's strategy emphasized value for money, competition, choice, and interoperability without an open-source preference. Portugal's proposed mandate was rejected. Brazil's initiative encouraged ministries to use and evaluate open software, while Peru's approved measure established neutral procurement. Australia's Tax Office considered open source alongside proprietary solutions. The federal procurement advice in the United States likewise covered ownership and maintenance costs, risk, security, and data privacy. These contrasting descriptions appear in the CSIS survey and explain why its rows cannot be reduced to a simple division between countries for and against open source.
The CSIS Japan and United States entries further separate development from acquisition guidance. Japan’s Information Technology Promotion Agency worked on adoption and standardization, while the Department of Defense roadmap sought broader use of open software. Neither description makes the recorded action a law requiring every agency to replace every proprietary program. The branch or agency field therefore adds essential context to the action label: it identifies whose work, program, or guidance the row describes.
Adoption and policy are related questions
Wikipedia's overview of public-institution adoption describes national administrations, local governments, and educational uses. It frames institutional control over information technology as a reason for moving to free software and acknowledges that transitions face challenges. Such an overview addresses use and migration, whereas the survey also records unsuccessful legislation and efforts to develop local capacity. Software in an agency, a government-wide procurement rule, and a proposal in committee therefore belong to different kinds of account.
The regional records also contain different government explanations. The CSIS entry on Argentina's advisory measure identifies lower costs, local employment, and security as its stated rationale. Other entries describe merit-based comparison and flexibility to use a mixture of licensing models. Those aims explain the public measures being reported; they do not demonstrate that a licensing model produced lower costs or greater security in every setting. An account of policy separates an institution's objective from evidence about the result.
Later developments give the earlier record context
Munich illustrates why a policy survey is not an endpoint. Wikipedia's account of LiMux describes a municipal desktop migration launched in 2004 and a November 2017 council decision to reverse that migration and return to proprietary desktop software by 2020. The same account records a later renewed emphasis on free software. The sequence concerns a particular city and its changing decisions; it is not a verdict on all government migrations.
The United Kingdom's GOV.UK open standards principles publication describes a policy for software interoperability, data, and document formats, developed following consultation between February and June 2012. It records that later revisions left the policy unchanged while updating the document. Standards policy addresses how systems and information connect; that subject is related to, but distinct from, a rule about which license a purchased program carries.
Regional reading
The Europe overview connects national measures with interoperability frameworks and public licensing. Latin America follows free-software bills, decrees, and advisory policies. Asia and the Pacific covers procurement alongside development programs, while the United States distinguishes federal guidance from state bills and voting-system standards. The Spanish-language overview introduces the same procurement, licensing, and standards questions with examples from Spain and Latin America.