Whilst an ever increasing number of countries is deciding to give free software priority in public sector projects, an open source courts package is currently taking flak in Switzerland according to Germany’s Linux-Magazin. Some years ago the Swiss Federal Court developed a program called Open Justitia which assists in inquiries into court decisions. As a consequence the Federal judiciary is now having being accused of being commercially active.

According to a press release from the Digital Sustainability Parliamentary Group, Swiss judicial authorities are being unjustly criticised of “partial reporting” in the country’s main media. At the weekend, the Schweizer Tagesschau and Sonntagszeitung newspapers made the allegation (wrongly in the Parliamentary Group’s opinion) that “with the freely available software, the Federal Court is illegally conducting a business as a state institution and is forcing private suppliers out of the market with a 100% subsidised product”, the Digital Sustainability Parliamentary Group wrote on its website. At the same time it announced it will be submitting a motion which would explicitly permit public sector organisations to release software they have developed themselves as open source.

“No advanced algorithms were available on the market”

The Federal Court developed the software since there was alternative of a comparable quality for searching for court decisions. No suitable “advanced” search algorithm was available on the market, so the court “was forced to develop its own solution”. The allegation that the Federal Court is offering commercial services around the open source Open Justitia package is false.

And finally the Group writes that development under free licences is underway in Europe and results in savings if public sector organisations are involved, mentioning cantons which are saving six figure sums thanks to the software. Commercial service providers are charging CHF 15,000 upwards for integration of .

Open Justitia

Open Justitia consists of several components (Norm, Doc, Bib, Ldoc, Anom and Spider),ranging from document management and search to the anonymisation of court rulings and the integration of external legal data sources. In 2012 the project won the Enterprise & IT Architecture Excellence Award and the Swiss Open Source Award. Open Source Award jury chairman Matthias Günter wrote as follows in its statement of reasons: “In the field of federal administration, the Federal Court has long been a trailblazer for open source, even if most public sector organisations are consciously or unconsciously using ever more open source. The next logical step is the release of complete solutions, by means of which new ecosystems arise in which the authorities, like the private sector, benefit from lower costs, increased interoperability and more sustainable solutions. A department which takes such a step needs courage; dealing with existing market participants, as well as the development of a new community need endurance and conviction.”

Read the original German new piece in Linux-Magazin.

Earlier this month, the government of Kenya announced that in the next three years it will move its IT operations to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), a move that will reduce its IT costs by more than 50%, according to a report on the Kenyan news website Standard Digital.

Needless to say, the announcement hasn’t gone down too well with the major supplier of the present IT systems used by Kenya’s government and as a consequence, Paul Roy Owino, technology advisor, Microsoft East and Southern Africa, has launched a campaign of misinformation, aka FUD, against it.

Firstly , he alleges FOSS is more insecure: “The Government stands to lose to hackers, freedom to third party modification coming with Free and Open Source Software it plans to adopt increases chances of Internet attacks. I do not think the Government has competent expertise to handle the challenges that comes with the free and Open Source Software.

Secondly and more importantly, Mr Roy believes FOSS isn’t covered by copyright: “Just like other players in the copyrighted software, we are accountable when our software is hacked, the case is different with the non-copyrighted software”.

Mr Roy clearly doesn’t understand FOSS licences such as the GPL. The software is subject to copyright, just like the proprietary products peddled by his employer. The major difference is the licences under which FOSS is provided assign certain rights (e.g. copying, redistribution and so on) to the end user. Interestingly Mr Roy seems to intimate that customers can sue Microsoft if they suffer losses due to ‘hacking’. However, any damages for which Microsoft may be held liable are specifically limited are limited to a refund of the amount paid for any of its software, as exemplified the Windows 7 EULA:

26. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. You can recover from Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to the amount you paid for the software. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect or incidental damages.

This limitation applies to

• anything related to the software, services, content (including code) on third party Internet sites,
  or third party programs; and
• claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, guarantee or condition, strict liability, negligence, or other tort to the extent permitted by applicable law.

It also applies even if

• repair, replacement or a refund for the software does not fully compensate you for any losses; or
• Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages.

Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. They also may not apply to you because your country may not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental, consequential or other damages.

One can only hope Kenya will be happier and better off with software suppliers with more integrity.

Hat tip: Roy Schestowitz