The Reform of Government Code contains a major step back on the obligations relating to leisure and business continuity software for public administrations.
They are innovations that are likely to go unnoticed in the sea of text magnum. The first results from the amendments introduced by article. 68, which regulates the comparative analysis of the solutions in the case of software purchases. In recent text published on the government website, are deleted some paragraphs: 2, 2-bis and 4. With these, they go interoperability and application cooperation, which are not reflected in other parts of the CAD, and the repertoire of open formats provided in paragraph 4. as disappears the opportunity for the public administration to seek a prior opinion to AGID for the correctness of the choices made with respect to the acquisition of software. Road probably little traveled, but that certainly helped to convey the notion that Article. 68 is not a trinket to the decree, but obliges the PA to carry out comparative assessments series, in accordance with Circular 63/2013 Agid, and choose free or reuse solutions – with the same quality – over proprietary software.
a question on that basis arises: what of, after the renewal of the CAD, open source in Italy, with a provision that now becomes incomplete and loses linearity and contiguity given the close relationship between the paragraphs and from ‘express provision of open mandatory formats and their repertoire?
It will not be that Italy takes a step back on its free software while the European Parliament gave its opinion in its favor?
On 29 October, in fact, the European Parliament, in the Resolution which followed to the one on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens ( 2015/2635 (RSP) ), reiterated its position on the systematic replacement of proprietary software, supporting the necessary migration to software solutions open source , with the introduction of a criterion of choice of mandatory open in favor of proprietary ones in all future procurement procedures for the ICT sector.
It ‘true that this point has not been touched in art. 68 – where the choice of the opening remains one of the possible alternatives and the prevailing technical and economic assessment of available solutions on the market – but the lack of provision of open formats which prospective does it mean? And then, what interfaces, now, the definition of art. 68, paragraph 3, where “the open-data format” is “ a data format made public, documented exhaustively and neutral with respect to the necessary technological tools for the use of the same “?
The European Parliament’s position is very clear: to introduce, where necessary legislative changes in procurement, in order to enhance the security of the EU institutions and especially stressing the particular need to systematically replacing proprietary software with open source solutions , then checked and verified, within all EU institutions. Obvious that the field of procurement and the associated tender procedures should see the introduction of obligatory open selection criteria.
The equation of Parliament is very clear: open equals the transparent and safer equals . So why the choice of the government to defuse the art. 68?
In the same abnormal direction seems to expressly repealing art. 50-bis, who had introduced business continuity: the “risk scenarios” foreshadowed by the standard are certainly not diminished, in fact; such standards, therefore, replace the compulsory provision of emergency plans and disaster recovery ? We will see what the final choice and, above all, we will try to find out why. We hope, however, that no one tries to open some cracks for political or economic reasons unknown to us in the difficult path of exploitation of free software have done so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment