National policymaking is particular to each country; the type of society, government and economic circumstances therein; and naturally, the knowledge and talents of those creating the policies. ICT policy and regulation is a relatively new and challenging field for many policymakers. It requires understanding of complex technical, economic, social and political issues. At the same time, it tries to govern a rapidly changing environment, which can have significant effect on a nation's future. The wide range of stakeholders include international authorities tasked with upholding interoperability standards; national governments wishing to protect national interests and harness ICT for socioeconomic development; corporations that make up the technology sector; academia that collaborates with industry to develop technology; and the end user who needs access to affordable technology. As the global information society grows, so do the complexities of the technology underpinning it, requiring governments to formulate ever more sophisticated policy.

While there are no universal rules, the following considerations can help policymakers frame their thinking about new technology in general and FOSS in particular. To incorporate technology into policy, policymakers should:

• Understand the areas where government interventions are possible and map out the options;
• Look at possible strategies and consider what other governments are doing;
• Understand the basic economics around technology use; and
• Consider the difficulties and obstacles to implementation.

There are three general strategic positions typically taken by government policies dealing with FOSS:

• Mandate the use of FOSS. This is the strongest pro-FOSS position that governments can take and it usually requires strong local support for FOSS from many sectors of society. Governments that decide to mandate the use of a certain type of software often include philosophical and ethical arguments in their strategies. FOSS policies of this type typically include clear procurement guidelines requiring that all public-sector investment (including research and development) in software be directed to support free/open source software. It requires a broad strategy that integrates all possible areas of government intervention as outlined in section Possible areas for government intervention below, including capacity building, education, and awareness-raising. Countries that are formulating or have started implementing such policies include Brazil and Peru.
This is the strongest pro-FOSS position that governments can take and it usually requires strong local support for FOSS from many sectors of society. Governments that decide to mandate the use of a certain type of software often include philosophical and ethical arguments in their strategies. FOSS policies of this type typically include clear procurement guidelines requiring that all public-sector investment (including research and development) in software be directed to support free/open source software. It requires a broad strategy that integrates all possible areas of government intervention as outlined in section Possible areas for government intervention below, including capacity building, education, and awareness-raising. Countries that are formulating or have started implementing such policies include Brazil and Peru.

• Favour the use of FOSS. These types of policies usually recommend a merit-based procurement approach that favours FOSS if both software solutions are found to be at least equally suitable. Governments implementing such policies often engage in further activities to "level the playing field" and improve the competitive position for FOSS in their country. This is frequently done by supporting awareness campaigns and engaging in research.
These types of policies usually recommend a merit-based procurement approach that favours FOSS if both software solutions are found to be at least equally suitable. Governments implementing such policies often engage in further activities to "level the playing field" and improve the competitive position for FOSS in their country. This is frequently done by supporting awareness campaigns and engaging in research.

• Remain technology neutral. A technology-neutral approach does not mention a preferred type of software in procurement guidelines, but recommends software applications to be chosen based on a number of other characteristics, such as cost, reliability, security, availability of support, etc. This position does not try to influence existing software market forces (see the section on FOSS economics for policymakers for more detail).
A technology-neutral approach does not mention a preferred type of software in procurement guidelines, but recommends software applications to be chosen based on a number of other characteristics, such as cost, reliability, security, availability of support, etc. This position does not try to influence existing software market forces (see the section on FOSS economics for policymakers for more detail).

In addition to the above options, governments frequently add one or both of the following aspects to their FOSS policies:

• Mandate or favour the use of open standards. The discussion of open standards is often incorrectly lumped together with open source (for more information on open standards, see the box below). Both proprietary and free/open source software can implement (or ignore) open standards. Governments that favour an open standards policy typically attempt to avoid vendor lock-in and ensure long-term viability of investment in software. There is considerably less controversy regarding the benefits of such a policy compared to the other policy options. Some governments add a mandate for open standards to otherwise FOSS-favourable or technology-neutral policies.
The discussion of open standards is often incorrectly lumped together with open source (for more information on open standards, see the box below). Both proprietary and /open source software can implement (or ignore) open standards. Governments that favour an open standards policy typically attempt to avoid vendor lock-in and ensure long-term viability of investment in software. There is considerably less controversy regarding the benefits of such a policy compared to the other policy options. Some governments add a mandate for open standards to otherwise FOSS-favourable or technology-neutral policies.

• Mandate or favour local suppliers. While not strictly focusing on a certain type of software, mandating or favouring local suppliers can support some of the objectives that governments try to achieve with FOSS policies, including support for the local ICT industry.
While not strictly focusing on a certain type of software, mandating or favouring can support some of the objectives that governments try to achieve with FOSS policies, including support for the local ICT industry.

What do you think?

• Of all the stakeholders, who should FOSS policies focus on most?
• What measures/steps can bring greater collaboration among stakeholders?
• What other strategies outside of this article can generate more acceptable FOSS policies?