Détails Idea: Logiciels libres

Le gouvernement du Canada (GC) produit plus de logiciels (aussi connus sous le nom d’applications, de code, de programmes informatiques, de scripts, etc.) que vous ne le pensez. Les données récemment publiées sur Données.gc.ca viennent bien de quelque part! Les logiciels développés en interne servent souvent à recueillir, trier et analyser ces données.


Si parmi les logiciels produits par le GC, davantage étaient des logiciels ouverts, les Canadiens pourraient plus donner leur opinion sur les données produites, les citoyens et les entreprises pourraient utiliser ces logiciels pour améliorer leur efficacité au travail et le GC pourrait améliorer ses logiciels grâce à la rétroaction et à l’aide du public.


Les logiciels ouverts ne sont en aucun cas la meilleure approche au monde, mais ils connaissent déjà un formidable succès au sein du GC, notamment : la Boîte à outils de l’expérience Web et METRo (logiciel de prévision routière d'EC). Mieux encore, les logiciels ouverts favorisent l’ouverture et la responsabilisation tout en offrant aux Canadiens plus d’occasions de participer aux activités du gouvernement.


Les logiciels ouverts devraient être au cœur du Plan d’action du Canada pour un gouvernement ouvert.

En accord (136people agree)


There are several simple ways that Open Government could encourage Open Source Software inside government, any one of which would go a long way:
1. Give departments the same incentives for releasing software under an Open Source license as they do for publishing Open Data. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/developers)
2. Publish a statement similar to the White House’s statement on Open Source that describes how Open Source Software is desirable for government.
3. Have a senior body in the Government of Canada state that, where possible, software developed inside government should be Open Source.
4. Include an Open Source Software option (maintained or developed in house) for major software Requests For Proposals (RFP). The proposal should take into consideration the added benefit of openly sharing the development with Canadians.
5. Recommend an Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved license to use with software produced inside the Government of Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative)
6. Ensure that departments which produce software have access to the Intellectual Property professionals required to make the informed decisions regarding Open Source Software.
7. Work with interested parties inside the Government of Canada to produce guidelines or best practices for Open Source Software.
8. Encourage software developers in the Government of Canada to use existing open source software as much as possible to reduce costs and development time.

If you agree with one or more of these statements, please like this idea and leave a comment to let us know which ones you support.

You’re right, the Government of Canada has a long history of using open source software when possible. Contributing back to the open source community and tools are essential to the growth and success of these products.

In addition to the Web Experience Toolkit and METRo, the Open Government Portal utilizes open source code that we have contributed back to the CKAN and Drupal Communities.

Formalizing our approach to the use of open source tools through Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government is certainly an option that we will explore.

Some departments have already established guidelines to using and distributing open source tools; this could be scaled up.

Awesome :) Thanks a lot for your comment!

BTW, we have an official Open Source Software Community of Practice in Shared Services Canada (which I'm one of the co-leader). Don't hesitate to contact me (info in GEDS.gc.ca), we'll be more than happy to help!

Thanks so much for the official response! It sounds like many of the pieces are already in place. I'd be happy to help where possible.

I have a slight quibble with 5. I think it should just be ´Recommend that an Open source...´ different groups have different goals, and so the appropriate license for one group, may not be appropriate for another. If the goal is to build community and collect contributions around a particular code-base, then a GPL oriented license, which requires changes distributed to be made available. If the goal is to promote a standard, or enable inter-operability, the BSD or MIT style licenses, are much better.
What is important is to discourage license proliferation which adds a crippling degree of friction to mixing code together with different licenses. Adoption of a well-known license is the main point. Not which one.

All these suggestions are great. However, it will be important to plan for software maintenance. There could be a central department that could just do that, with professional programmers to support software developpers, in addition to deal with copyright issues.

I agree that this is the dream. Every time something gets centralized though... it seems the budget gets cut in half.

If this was properly funded I think it could be (r)Evolutionary for the Canadian Government (might take a decade or two to figure out). There are already examples though. I think a friend of mine mentioned they had dedicated software teams at EC.

1. On the legislative side of things, the best thing to do in my opinion would be to adopt a law modelled on the one Italy has. See these sources:


But a law is nothing if it is not applied by the civil service.

2. On the civil service side of things, one promising digital strategy I am aware of is that of UK Government Digital Service, which wrote a "Government Service Design Manual" implementing a "Digital By Default Service Standard". Criteria 15 of the said Service Standard states: "Make all new source code open and reusable, and publish it under appropriate licences (or give a convincing explanation as to why this can’t be done for specific subsets of the source code)." Progress reports of what is being actually done are impressive. See the documents here:


En français : FACIL a publié un document de recommandations (pour la Ville de Montréal) qui cite en exemple l'Italie pour la législation et le Royaume-Uni pour la stratégie d'action. Voir le document suivant aux pages 4 et 5 :


(Notez que l'auteur de ces lignes est membre du CA de FACIL et est le principal auteur du document de recommandations en question.)

These are all good ideas.

I'd also add that it's worth actively encouraging the public sector to contribute back to existing open source projects. Not only is this a good means to learn & build more secure/robust software, but it also helps out the greater community.

There's so much to learn from the UK, USA & Australia about the adoption of open source in government. Ultimately though by engaging with the open source community, the culture of the public sector can change to be more inclusive & evidence based.

GC should encourage, support and contribute to the use of major FOSS like Linux and Open Office instead of spend tens of millions of dollars in licenses for Microsoft products and antivirus... The majority of staff are equipped with a conventional office environment with Outlook, Excel and a bunch of Web applications to do their job, to the replacement could be done easily and transparently to the end user...

I support the suggestion, but hope the GoC will not focus on costs but rather accountability and transparency.

When the government automates policy in software, that software should be seen as a 'translation' of the policy and thus as open and accountable as the original policy. This should suggest proactive disclosure, or otherwise availability under ATIP requests just as would be assumed if policy was translated from French to English.

To be accountable it is not only the lines written by the government itself that needs to be transparent, but the software stack that the code runs on: we need to ensure that authors of lower level software are not able to corrupt/manipulate the intent of the policy. I don't think Canada has to go as far as China is proposing and have government move towards a government mandated microprocessor, but there should be some recognition of the need for a publicly disclosed audit of government systems.

One primer for this way of thinking of software is Lawrence Lessig's book "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace."

At the moment too much policy is being authored outside of government by entities that are non-transparent and unaccountable, and where alleged "trade secrets" or other government granted exclusivity (copyright, patents, etc) are being abused as an excuse to hide the actual workings of government when the real-world implementations in software don't match the theoretical policy set by parliament and other non-software policy makers.

Some great examples from other governments! I especially like how Scotland translated OpenOffice.org into Gaelic. How much fun would it be to translate similar software into Inuktitut or other languages used by many Canadians!

There are so many possibilities when it comes to Open Source Software. It seems that the time is right for Canada to get on board in a decisive way.

I strongly support this initiative! The code quality alone between the government closed-source vs open-sourced projects I've worked on speak volumes (even taking into consideration that the latter didn't contain decades of legacy code.)

Real value exists in data and the use of the software, not the software itself most often. Opening the source on a project empowers many more eyes to examine the code, explore new potential in the code by extending it, and forces the direction of the project to be much more sustainable.

This is a great idea! I would love to see the software tools developed within the Federal Government available to the public under an open source license. I feel that open data and open source software can really complement each other, and access to the software facilitates effective use of the data.

As someone who develops software, I would be interested in seeing the sorts of software projects being worked on within government, and also potentially contributing back to them.

Matthew, I especially like your comment: "forces the direction of the project". Too often in government we make software that is convenient for us, not necessarily the end user. In an open source project your developers are your users and you get feedback from all around! You are much more likely to come up with a final product that is user/human-centric and convenient for your intended audience.

There was a "No Charge Licensed Software" RFI run in 2009. Over 50, largely positive, responses were received from many groups, including open source and proprietary companies, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), consultants, industry associations, foundations, the academic community, collaborative groups, and private citizens. An internal draft report was prepared by PWGSC, as reported in the September 22 2009 PWGSC ITAC update, but I am not aware that the report or any following recommendations were ever published.

There is currently no published position for OSS on the GC Treasury Board Secretariat, CIO Branch, site, only a reference to old related document currently archived at Library and Archives. This is a big contrast to other countries, including USA, UK, Australia and many more. If Canada is to fully benefit from OSS, then I think we should follow step, and develop a clear position and strategy.

France is a good example of a country that has a strong adoption of OSS and were a whole ecosystem has developed to provide OSS solutions and support. The French government has issued an RFP for OSS support services for a very broad base of OSS solutions to multiple departments to facilitate their use of OSS based solutions. And, reportedly, benefits are not only in potential cost savings, but primarily in increased flexibility.

Yes, please. Let our government use/contribute/promote OSS. We want both said public data to be available, AND software to support mandatory filling (e.g. Yearly income tax filling software to be ALSO open source).

I think any and all of the steps mentioned go in the right direction. Take as many such steps as practical.

But for licencing, may I suggest that there should be a recommended licence that is compatible with as many other popular licenses as possible? The MIT licence would seem to fit the bill better tha the GPL. And if the code uses media resources, such as images, which could normally use a creative-commons license, please dual-licence it under both a such a medua licence and a licence that is commonly used for program code, just to eliminate any ambiguity about distributing programs containing these media.

Une évidence, je me demande bien pourquoi ça doit faire l'objet d'une suggestion de ce type, le gouvernement Canadian a besoin de s'ouvrir!

N'oublions pas de bâtir sur les efforts passés, tels que les lignes directrices sur les logiciels libres du CNRC publiées sur GCPEDIA :0)
Let's not forget previous efforts such as the NRC Open Source Software Guidelines published on GCPEDIA :0)

Veuillez lire l'Énoncé de confidentialité qui s'applique à la présente consultation, de même que les Règles de participation connexes.

Énoncé de confidentialité

L'information que vous fournissez est recueillie par le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada (SCT) en vertu de l'article 7 de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques.

Cette information est recueillie aux fins d'obtention de commentaires sur la première année du Plan d'action du Canada pour un gouvernement ouvert en vue de la préparation du rapport d'auto-évaluation du gouvernement.

Les renseignements personnels sont protégés en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels et seront conservés dans le fichier de renseignements personnels POU 938, Activités de sensibilisation. Aux termes de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, vous avez le droit de demander d'accéder aux renseignements personnels détenus par une institution gouvernementale vous concernant, et de demander que des corrections y soient apportées si vous croyez que l'information que vous avez fournie contient des erreurs ou est incomplète. Si vous souhaitez vous prévaloir de ce droit ou obtenir des précisions concernant cet énoncé, veuillez communiquer avec le coordonnateur de la protection des renseignements personnels du SCT par courriel [en composant le 613-946-6260 ou, sans frais, le 1-866-312-12511, ou en écrivant au coordonnateur de la protection des renseignements personnels du SCT, Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada, 8e étage, 140, rue O'Connor, Ottawa (Ontario) Canada K1A 0R5]. Pour en apprendre davantage sur les questions relatives à la protection des renseignements personnels et sur la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels en général, veuillez consulter le site Web du Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée ou composer le 1-800-282-1376.

En choisissant de participer vous reconnaissez avoir accepté les modalités susmentionnées.