>> When the alternative is a builtin monopoly, at govt contract costs, that can't be fired but can also hold the state to ransom with proprietary software, then that central IT dept at state level looks a lot more desirable.

>

> Does it though?

Well, yes. The only difference should be the license the software is provided under. The result of the current system is all the disadvantages of FLOSS + the lock-in effect.

> Firstly it's really not that much money in the grand scheme of things. Secondly when the OSS software project fails, as most software projects (commercial or OSS) do, who carries the can for spending all that money and having nothing to show for it?

Well, who carries that now? Because all the software is supplied without any liability to the vendor. Right now if a SAP rollout is a complete failure, SAP's responsibility ends with "Sorry".

> Politically that would be insane.

I don't understand why: lets say SAP delivers a FLOSS system because that is in the requirements - how does the politician get the blowback if it all goes wrong, compared to the SAP proprietary system?

> And for what? So instead of being beholden to commercial suppliers they are beholden to a nice big internal new govt department?

Firstly, they are not locked into "commercial suppliers", they are locked into "a single supplier with the power to arbitrarily raise prices and lower quality at the same time".

Secondly, while the state might be beholden to a new internal department, they have control over that department. They might even outsource that department to a commercial entity if they so wished, and keep only a minimal headcount of lawyers to ensure that the FLOSS license is adhered to.

>> In fact, the only difference between the two would be that the FLOSS systems would allow the state to invite different vendors to bid on and compete for modification of the FLOSS systems, with all the modifications open so that the state can switch to a new vendor if necessary.

>

> How would the state choose between one vendor and another?

The same way they currently choose between different proprietary vendors.

> Who will decide if the vendor did a good job or not?

The same way they do it now for proprietary vendors.

> Which FLOSS system is even in the running to replace serious bits of Govt software?

They can decide that the same way they currently decide which proprietary vendor gets the contract.

> If there are good, well supported _free_ competitors to [SAP et al] then why do commercial businesses still use [SAP]?

Who cares?

My point is that the practical result of the current system is that the requirement for all vendors usually boils down to "Must pay license fees to $VENDOR", where $VENDOR is Microsoft, SAP, etc.

If the requirement is changed to "All software must be provided under a FLOSS license", then the state can switch vendors at will.

This does not prevent those companies (SAP, etc) from providing systems. It only means that they cannot hold the state to ransom for future modifications of those systems.

Really, there is no downside to the state adding a single FLOSS requirement to all the existing contracts. They can even grandfather in existing systems so that everything continues working, and only make it a requirement for new systems, or only for new modifications to existing systems.