Risultati
241 risultati
-
italia
2.3. Comparative assessment
Given the varied nature of the solutions and the difficulty in making uniform quantitative comparisons, such as in the case of comparing a solution from which certain costs may be derived (an ‘on premises’ proprietary or cloud computing solution) with a solution to be implemented from scratch - for which only a feasibility study is available - it was decided to specify a decision-making process through the description of phases and their organisation into macro-phases. The following diagram provides the macro-phases that characterise the decision-making process to follow up the comparative assessment provided for in Article 68 of the CAD. MACRO FASE 1. Individuazione delle esigenze. MACRO-PHASE 1. Identification of requirements. MACRO FASE 2. Analisi delle soluzioni a riuso delle PA e delle soluzioni open source. [lettera b), c) dell’art. 68 comma 1]. MACRO-PHASE 2. Analysis of reusable PA solutions and open source solutions. [letters (b) and (c) of Article 68(1)]. MACRO FASE 3. Analisi delle altre soluzioni. [lettera a), e), f) dell’art. 68 comma 1]. MACRO-PHASE 3. Analysis of other solutions. [letters (a), (e) and (f) of Article 68(1)]. The macro-phases identified are as follows:. MACRO-PHASE 1: This phase aims to define requirements by specifying the needs and constraints (organisational and economic) that affect the choices for the identification of a solution appropriate to the requirements of the administration;. MACRO-PHASE 2: In this phase the public administration considers the possibility of satisfying its own requirements by adopting a solution already in use by another administration (hereinafter referred to as a ‘reusable PA solution’) or free software or open source code (hereinafter referred to as ‘open source solutions’). MACRO-PHASE 3: If macro-phase 2 does not allow the public administration to satisfy its requirements, the satisfaction of the same is pursued through the use of proprietary computer programs, through the use of a licence and/or from-scratch products. In the following section, the macro-phases identified are divided into phases, describing the activities to be carried out in terms of criteria and methodologies to be adopted ...
-
italia
2.8. Choice of software provision method
If the software (reusable, open source or proprietary) is to be installed on a server, the administration may find itself considering the following provision methods:. installation on a server with direct availability for the administration. The choice between these options must be made by calculating the Total Cost of Ownership as described in Section 2.7. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). According to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Three-Year Plan for IT in the PA, in order to install on an available server, the administration must use the PA Cloud, choosing one of the following IaaS options:. installation in a Batch 1 SPC Cloud;. installation in Qualified Cloud Service Providers in accordance with the AgID circular ‘Criteria for the qualification of Cloud Service Providers for the PA’ ...
-
italia
2.5. Macro-phase 2: Analysis of reusable PA solutions and open source solutions
In the event that it is impossible to identify a solution that satisfies, at least to a large extent, the requirements of the administration, between ‘reusable PA solutions’ and ‘open source solutions’, a document is prepared (without format constrictions) that justifies the reasons for the ascertained impossibility, which will be kept with the documents filed for the proceedings. The public administration continues the comparative assessment exercise by following up with the phases anticipated within the next macro-phase 3 ...
-
italia
3.1. Introduction and legislative context
Article 69(1) defines the obligation, for public administrations that own software designed to the specifications of the public client, ‘to make the relevant source code available, complete with documentation and released in a public repository under an open licence, free of charge for other public administrations or legal entities that intend to adapt it to their own requirements’. The new wording of Article 69(2) and (2a), below, stresses the aim of encouraging reuse by taking steps to ensure that ‘the awarding administration shall always hold all rights to the programs and services of the information and communication technologies specifically developed for it’, ‘unless this is excessively onerous for proven technical and economic reasons’ and that ‘the source code, the documentation and the relative functional technical description of all the IT solutions. . . are published through one or more platforms identified by AgID with its own guidelines to be adopted pursuant to Article 71’ ...
-
italia
3.5. Open licences and selecting a licence
A free software licence allows for the free use of the source code to which it refers, while imposing certain constraints that must be respected. As such, the integration of multiple free software components released under different licences requires a compatibility analysis of the same. Such an analysis may be overly complex if there are multiple licences involved, leading to additional costs. In other words, a proliferation of different licences makes it more difficult and costly to reuse software, contrary to the objectives outlined in Article 69 of the CAD. Use of the following decision-making process is recommended for selecting an open licence:. If the software release refers to modifying existing open source software (i.e. software picked-up for reuse by another administration or owned by third parties), the administration will use the same licence with which the software was originally distributed, to facilitate maximum interoperability and reuse with other users of the same software;. If it is new software, apart from the exceptions specified below, use the EUPL v1.2 licence (SPDX identifier: EUPL-1.2): https://spdx.org/licenses/EUPL-1.2.html. This licence, developed by the European Commission, has been selected as a ‘copyleft’ licence, guaranteeing maximum interoperability at European level, and has also been translated into Italian. There are only a few exceptions to this general specification:. if the software is mainly used online (e.g. via a browser), use the ‘GNU Affero General Public Licence’ version 3 or above (SPDX identifier: AGPL-3.0-or-later): https://spdx.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0-or-later.html;. This licence was chosen because, in addition to being compatible with most open source licences, it requires those who modify the code to release improvements even if it is used as part of a SaaS service. if software components with a wide range of applications (e.g. ‘software libraries’ and ‘SDKs’) are being released, use the ‘BSD 3-Clause’ licence (SPDX identifier: BSD-3-Clause) https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html;. This licence has been chosen to ensure that all stakeholders use it as freely as possible, allowing applications to be created based on such libraries, which can be released under any licence. These types of software components are normally used to facilitate interoperability with public administrations, and benefit from the emergence of ecosystems that include third-party applications, including proprietary software. For software technical documentation, use the Creative Commons licence CC-BY 4.0 (SPDX identifier: CC-BY-4.0) https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0.html. This licence was selected because it allows for easy reuse of documentation and code examples contained therein. Please refer to Annex A: Guide to publishing software as open source for technical details on how to correctly embed the licence text to the source code at the time of publication. Selected licences have a wide use in the open source ecosystem, therefore the ability to integrate third-party components released with compatible licences is maximised. An administration that wishes to select a licence differently from that outlined here must justify their reasons, analysing the compatibility between the licenses adopted and those proposed here, ensuring that the choice does not limit opportunities for reuse and that it does not entail additional costs for administrations in the reuse phase. [1]. Stallman, The Free software Definition -. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.it.html. [2]. https://www.opensource.org/. [3]. https://spdx.org ...
-
italia
3.6. Releasing existing software under open licence
Article 69(1) reads as follows:. ‘Public administrations that are owners of solutions and computer programs made to the specifications of the public client, have the obligation to make the relevant source code available, complete with documentation and released in a public repository under an open licence, for use free of charge for other public administrations or for legal entities wishing to adapt them to their own requirements, except when there are ‘justified reasons of public order and safety, national defence and electoral consultations’. The obligations mentioned here refer to the entire software range on which the rights of an administration are emphasised, with the consequence that, regardless of the requirement to comply with these obligations when concluding new contracts, each administration is required to implement them promptly, including with reference to the existing software where they own the relevant intellectual and industrial property rights (as indicated in 1.5Ownership). Implementing these obligations on existing software is an essential aspect of maximising the effectiveness of the provision in question and, more generally, of the good practice of reuse, since it allows other administrations to benefit without delay from the opportunities offered by reuse, avoiding the risk that they will have to reacquire solutions already belonging to the public information estate and that, therefore, could be used without generating any additional cost for the community. Therefore the administration must create an inventory of the software that is already in its possession in order to verify its ownership, and if so proceed to release under open licence. Given the rapid obsolescence of digital technologies and the importance of encouraging the reuse of available solutions, software that has not been in use by the administration for more than 5 years is deemed to be excluded from the release obligation, with reference to the date of publication of these guidelines. Detailed specifications on how to implement the release are contained in Annex A: Guide to publishingsoftware as open source. If the administration does not have the necessary resources to align the document with the standards set out in the guide, the administration must in any case immediately proceed with the release of what it possesses in its current state, it being understood that the presence of documentation is an essential requirement set out in regulations and it will therefore be necessary to proceed with the completion and alignment of the documentation as soon as possible in order to consider the obligation completed ...
-
italia
3.3. Developers Italia and identifying software for reuse
The reuse model outlined above is made possible by AgID’s Developers Italia platform. Within the platform, there is a section dedicated to software made available for reuse by administrations. In particular:. Within Developers Italia, you can ‘register’ the administration software released in open source mode for reuse, so that it can be easily identified by other administrations ...
-
italia
3.7. Development of software from scratch
As already discussed in 1.5 Ownership, the administration must ensure full ownership of software created from scratch. Please refer to the aforementioned section for further information ...
-
italia
3.2. Reuse model
The reuse model outlined by the CAD is described in detail below. Each point of the following flow is specified in a later section of this document. Development phase. Administration ‘A’ uses its own resources and/or makes use of procurement to develop the software. In the case of procurement, as required by Article 69(2), the administration guarantees the acquisition of ownership of all intellectual and industrial property rights over the commissioned software(1.5 Ownership). During the course of the software development and/or at its conclusion, the administration publishes the source code of its software under an open licence, on a platform that meets the requirements identified in these guidelines (3.4.1 Identifying a code hosting tool), then registers its release within Developers Italia (3.7 Developing software from scratch). Reuse phase. The open licence allows administration ‘B’ to acquire and use the software of administration ‘A’ without having to sign a convention, subject to the terms of the licence. Administration ‘B’ carries out an assessment of the status of the software and its applicability to its own needs (2.5.2 Phase 2.2: Assessment of reusable solutions for the PA), including the possible need for customisation. If the software is customised, where possible, such customisation (as developed on the specific instructions of administration ‘B’) is also subject to the provisions of Article 69(1), and therefore the relevant source code must be released under an open licence ( 3.9 Reuse of software or use of open source software). The reuse model through open source software allows for software to be found, assessed and customised without entering into a convention with the administration that made the software available for reuse, as well the acceptance of the open source licence that is carried out through a simple download. Furthermore, the software is available online and therefore no access request is required. However, it is important to consider that the software may not be ‘ready to use’. The administration may therefore require technical intervention to install the software, adapt it to its requirements, train staff who will use it, and ensure that support and maintenance services are available. For all these interventions, the administration may use its own resources or supplies, since no obligation from this point of view is imposed on the administration that created the software and made it available for reuse ...
-
italia
3.4. Process of making software available for reuse under open licence
The administration that owns the software does not incur any specific obligation related to the release: it is not necessary to provide a warranty with the software, technical or user level support, nor financially support administrations that reuse the software as regards costs or adoption procedures ...
-
italia
3.9. Reuse of software or use of open source software
From a regulatory point of view, modifications or customisations to software under open licence are subject to Article 69(2) and therefore must be implemented by acquiring full ownership of the code developed. However, the reuse of software without any modifications, does not constitute an obligation to release. From the point of view of acquisition of ownership, the fact that the software being modified is not the property of the administration making the modification does not exempt the latter from the obligation to acquire ownership of the modifications developed. Please refer to 1.5 Ownership. Conversely, at a technical level, the process for making changes is different from the maintenance process described in 3.8 Maintenance of software by the owner administration, since the interventions will take place on software that is not fully owned and therefore technical coordination is desirable, which was previously described in relation to opportunities and benefits in 3.8.3 Support for reusing administrations. The technical process is detailed in Annex D: Guide to reusing open source software. In the case of procurement, the administration is required to include the guide among the tender technical documents, for example as an annex to the technical specifications, so that suppliers have immediate evidence of the process required ...
-
italia
3.8. Maintenance of software by the owner administration
If the administration initiates a process of maintenance for software that it already owns, but for which it has not yet released under an open licence, adding its initial release to the maintenance contract must be considered, because of the lower cost that is normally incurred compared to carrying it out separately ...