Advisory Panel of Experts on Open Source and OSS Utilization (1st)

Overview

Date and time: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 from 13:00 to 14:30
Location: Online (Microsoft Teams)
Agenda:
- Opening
- Agenda
  - Survey and Other Services Related to Agile Development and Open Sourcing in FY 2025 Information System Procurement
  - Expert Panel
  - Last Year's Review and Goals
  - Open Sourcing: Scope Reduction
  - OSS utilization: Sorting out promotion factors
  - Upcoming Schedule
- Closing and Communication

Material

Summary of the Proceedings

Date and

Tuesday, November 18, 2025, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

US>

Online (Microsoft Teams)

Committee Members Present

Leader of the Shoji Group
Mr. Imamura
Member Nakamura
Commissioner Iwahara
Advisor Toyama
Mr. Suzuki, an

Overview

The Secretariat explained the background and purpose of the Study Group and how to proceed with the survey, followed by discussion. The main opinions of each member of the Study Group were as follows:

About "Open Sourcing: Narrowing the Circle of Disclosure"

"To what extent should it be disclosed?" is a question that has been asked, but I don't think the answer can be decided uniformly. Isn't it realistic to sort out the extent to which it should be disclosed according to the content and purpose by type? I feel that it is necessary to discuss it while exploring the case division and conditions. I think that it is necessary to be careful not to attach too many conditions so that no one will use it.
The scope of disclosure differs depending on the characteristics of the OSS. By organizing these in a matrix, the most appropriate response will become clear, and this will eventually lead to discussions on the inner source.
There are two possible risks for public administration. The first is that in public administration, a job rotation is carried out every one to two years, and the frequency of changing members is high. The second is that since the budget is basically compiled for a single fiscal year, the budget is cut once in development and new procurement occurs in operation. As a result, development and operation are not linked seamlessly. This makes it easy for the same vendor to receive orders in both phases, and the so-called vendor lock-in problem is likely to occur.
As in the opinion of other members, I think that the scope of disclosure depends on the case, but I think that there are certain standards. Why not create a checklist, etc., and apply it when each government agency considers open source and organize it?
The big difference between open source in the private sector and in the public sector is "who is going to be the maintainer?" In the case of outsourcing to a private company, in the case of limited disclosure to each government ministry and agency or local government such as InnerSource, if the maintainer is outsourced to a vendor, the knowledge will be concentrated on the vendor, and as a result, the vendor will be in a very advantageous position. It is necessary to consider how to solve these problems.
In other countries, there is a trend to open source through inner source, and there are cases where it is adopted as a preparatory step for open source. Inner source is like a warm-up exercise for open source, and it can be said that the mind is already moving toward open source. There are various ways in which inner source is introduced in other countries. There are cases where it is actually positioned as a warm-up exercise and cases where it is just for internal use, but the basic idea is open source readiness.
When the scope of disclosure is limited to ministries and agencies, there is no need to apply open source licenses in detail. However, when the scope of disclosure is expanded to local governments, the scope of restrictions and obligations of OSS will expand. In addition, using OSS, which includes not only copyrights but also patent licenses, may disable patent rights held by national and local governments in some cases. Intellectual property management is described in the documents submitted by the secretariat, but I wonder if it can be handled to that extent. I think that it can be handled by choosing a clear license for patent licenses, but I am concerned that problems related to rights will occur as the scope of disclosure expands.
I think it is necessary to reorganize licensing and assets. Both public sector and industry recognize that these are the three major concerns of finance, legal, and security.
After open source is released, a community is formed. In various industries, the operation of the community is donated to a neutral organization. In order to solve a common problem in the industry and to attract more people, the community is donated to a neutral organization, and the community is further enlarged to maximize the benefits obtained.
The Japanese version of the Bayh-Dole System has also been announced by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, but there are cases in which National Research and Development Agencies have established terms of use citing this system, and the interpretation of the owner of the OSS is ambiguous as to whether it is the vendor who developed it or the government who ordered it.
As an administration, infringement of rights should be taken seriously. Whether or not to obtain rights in advance, including intellectual property and intellectual property rights, should be cleared, but it is assumed to be difficult.

About "OSS utilization: Summary of promotion factors"

Regarding this issue, "What are the elements to promote the utilization of OSSs?", I think it is all the roles of OSPOs. Since there is no history of OSPOs in public sector, it is unclear what kind of risks and concerns there are.
As OSPOs in industry are cross-functional, human resource development is also involved, but the question ultimately comes down to how OSPOs are evaluated. At present, I think that all the activities listed can be integrated into OSPOs, but I recognize that there is currently no system for accurately evaluating the actual implementation of activities.
In industry, open source initiatives tend to be driven primarily by R & D, which is often described as a cost center rather than a direct return stream. This tends to drive down investment priorities. Over the long term, open source initiatives have real benefits, but they are often neglected because the benefits are not immediately visible. I think this is probably due to the lack of evaluation systems and metrics, for example, metrics for open source people and initiatives.
Regarding vendor lock-in, there were about five items in the document. I think it is important for the ordering party to have a mindset, that is, the idea that the ordering party is not dependent on the vendor. By doing so, vendor lock-in can be eliminated. Changing the awareness of the ordering party is one of the OSPOs, and I think such efforts are important.
I think the most important thing is the mindset. I feel that if we don't have an "open source first" mindset, the status quo will not change. OSPOs in foreign companies with high market capitalization have built in appropriate collaboration with the open source community into their product development process. For example, they are actively involved in open source when they create services and make improvements to make them easier for them to use. As a result, the speed and quality of service development has improved. Also, in some companies, the entire management understands this mindset, which I feel is a crucial difference.
In terms of cost reduction, there are difficult parts, but I think it will lead to cost reduction in the medium to long term. If we utilize open source and take policies such as upstream first, the cost should be lower than paying to vendors as a result. However, it is a matter of how to prove the effect. Private companies are the same, and KPI management of cost is focused on profits. It is difficult to prove that these profits have improved. Looking at private companies that have succeeded in reducing costs, they are eventually making such efforts. Even in Digital Agency, if there are staff who understand the significance, I think we can proceed with it with a sense that it will lead to cost reduction in the medium to long term.
It can be said that it is definitely more profitable in the long run to be open than to be completely dependent on a single company. However, the issue is whether or not everyone will look at it from that perspective.
I think it depends on the minds of upper management. Private companies are the same, but in the end, I think the market capitalization tends to rise when there are managers with such minds.
While the major advantage of using OSS is to reduce costs, some people feel that "OSS is free, so it is somewhat suspicious," and I think it is necessary to change that awareness. I think that OSS is not a bad thing, and from the perspective of preventing infringement of rights that should never be done, it is very important how to deal with it. Regarding copyright, I think that OSS in which dead copies are made is not currently in general use, but regarding patent rights, it is sometimes difficult to confirm. When placing an order with a vendor and developing a system, it is possible to demand compensation and, if infringement of rights is found, to demand responsibility to a certain extent. On the other hand, in the case of OSS, it is difficult to impose the risk of infringement of the patent rights of OSS itself on the vendor side, and even if the development cost itself decreases, the cost of confirming whether there is infringement of rights increases, and as a result, I felt that it is necessary to consider what the overall cost will be.
If the possibility of infringement of rights is eliminated, the introduction and utilization may be promoted more. In other words, I think that part is a big barrier.
In terms of infringement of rights and risk management, there are efforts in the private sector to manage and share a list of open sources that have been checked, and to share a list of open sources that they have knowledge of or can ask for external support, so that they can use open source with peace of mind. It would be good if these efforts were introduced in the national government.
I've heard somewhere that the French government and others have an open-source list, but the problem is that even if there is an open-source list, you are on your own and not responsible for it.
I am sensitive to the term "cost reduction." My organization uses the term "lead time reduction" to convey the idea that "it can be done faster." The term "cost reduction" is misleading.
I think that license compliance is very important. Basically, it is based on the premise that "copyright exists" and that authors give licenses and permissions to make their works open to the public. However, I feel that this point is obscured by the text of the Japanese version of the Bayh-Dole System. It seems that it is discussed from the basic point of who the works are, but I would like to strongly insist that the owner is the author.
I would like to touch on the point that "owning rights" and "abandoning rights" are different. In the private sector, as a solution in the case of infringement of patent rights, there are cases in which they acquire many patent rights that are thought to be held by other OSS vendors themselves and enter into cross-licenses, or in which they defend against attacks by checking and restraining, but in the case of the national government, I think it is difficult to openly say such a response. I think it is also difficult to acquire and maintain rights as a check and balance, or to be under the umbrella of rights such as OIM. Therefore, it is necessary to have a different perspective from the private sector, of not infringing on the rights of others and protecting the continuity of services, regardless of whether or not they have their own rights.
There was an opinion that it is important not to reduce costs but to speed up the process, but it is true that the private sector has a major advantage in that it can get what it wants quickly. In the case of open source, in addition to being easy to customize, since the source code is open to the public, there is an advantage that the technical capabilities of engineers can be improved through various initiatives, and development can proceed quickly because engineers take the lead. On the other hand, in the case of public procurement, even if you say, "It can be done quickly because it is open source," whether private companies will actually bid is another issue, and I think that we need to pay attention to this.
Regarding the cultural community, from the perspective of promoting the use of open source, I think that contributing to the community is the essence of open source. Mid - and long-term cost reduction is also essential, but if there is a mechanism to give preferential treatment to vendors who have good relationships with the community in public procurement, I think that the private sector will be more motivated. If there is a mechanism to show the results of R & D contributed by private companies at the next bidding, I think that private companies will be more motivated.
In other countries, the system is gradually being established. In the initial stage, it is common to incorporate the priority use of OSS into procurement requirements, and to clearly state in the procurement specifications that OSS should be adopted as a priority system. In this way, many companies start with procurement requirements.

Greater than or