"Publicly funded R&D projects which aim to produce software outputs shall specify a proposed software exploitation route at the start of the project. At the completion of the project, the software shall be exploited either commercially or within an academic community or as OSS."[ Open Source Software Policy ]

Furthermore, it is recognised that there is a need to maximise returns on, and benefits from, public investment in publicly funded R&D software. Government policy helps achieve this by making clear that the 'exploitation route' for such publicly funded R&D software should be chosen with this objective in mind.

The policy on exploiting R&D software does not apply to software developed in areas of defence, national security or law enforcement or software developed by trading funds for reasons of national security and to protect government commercial interests.
Open-it-projects - epetition reply

This response essentially confirms the status quo. Yes, there is a government open source software policy , but that policy allows, as cited above, the option of using a free license, as opposed to requires. The two are not equal. Even accepting that defence concerns should be taken into account, which is a debatable issue on its own right knowledge is knowledge after all, the reply is unsatisfactory. Not that one would expect otherwise...

So why do I think the response is unsatisfactory? Simple. I believe that any product , including the knowledge to reproduce that product, funded by the public purse, must be available to the public at no cost, with no restrictions. Ideally it should enter the public domain, to protect the intellectual investment free licenses can be considered as fair and just. I believe the system must be fair for the tax payer, not any other body. That is why commercial or any other interests should not be taken into account. Keeping it simple and fair means that the rules will be understood and followed.

So point by point.

Policy

• ...specify a proposed software exploitation route... - ok
• ...the software shall be exploited either commercially or within an academic community or as OSS...
  • commercially? funded by the public? why?
  • academic community - no conflict with a free license, no need to mention it if they mean the same, if not why? funded by the public, means owned by the public
  • OSS [or public domain] - covers all fair cases...

The rest of the reply

• there is a need to maximise returns on, and benefits from, public investment in publicly funded R&D software.
  • maximise whose returns?
  • why single out R&D software only. There are grants to develop commercial software and/or services... Is it fair to essentially give money to somebody to (possibly) make money on secret knowledge, betting that they can potentially contribute to the economy. What if that knowledge was public? Useable by the public? It is common sense that the overall (speculative) benefits to the society and the economy in particular will be equal or higher.
• ...government commercial interests... - again, what are the priorities of interests of a government?

It is disappointing. The current generation of policy makers of any colour, in most countries, not just Britain, are too much focused on commerce, pragmatics... but forgetting that they are there to serve. Which in my opinion means to protect a society which is fair and just to all its members. The OSS policy of the British Government makes perfect sense in the 'status quo' framework. That is, it is good to have such a policy, but having it doesn't really change anything. It doesn't really alter the degree of fairness or justice. Unfortunately individual commercial interests weigh in more - they are easier to judge, measure, and report. It is difficult to report public good. There are few concrete measures.