Speaker
Description
Free and open-source software is usually framed as a technical choice an alternative stack, a cheaper license, a community of contributors. This talk argues it should also be understood as a matter of public institutional governance, using the judiciary as the sharpest possible test case.
Courts across Asia are adopting case management systems, e-filing platforms, and digital record systems, but almost none of this software is released under open licenses, and almost no public institution asks the questions the FOSS community asks by default: Who can read this code? Who can audit it? Who can fork it if the vendor disappears? Who owns the modifications built with public money?
Drawing on Nepal's judiciary as a case study, I'll show how the absence of open licensing, public source availability, and community-style governance around judicial software creates real risks-vendor lock-in, unauditable systems handling sensitive personal data, and institutions with no legal or technical path to independence from a single contractor.
I'll then turn to what FOSS communities- GNOME chief among them- already do well: transparent governance, copyleft and permissive licensing models, accessibility-first development, and contributor ecosystems that outlive any single vendor. I'll propose a legal framework, grounded in copyright, procurement, and data protection law, for how public institutions can responsibly adopt FOSS licensing and governance norms- not as ideology, but as a safeguard for democratic accountability.
Talk Description
Free and open-source software is usually framed as a technical choice an alternative stack, a cheaper license, a community of contributors. This talk argues it should also be understood as a matter of public institutional governance, using the judiciary as the sharpest possible test case.
Courts across Asia are adopting case management systems, e-filing platforms, and digital record systems, but almost none of this software is released under open licenses, and almost no public institution asks the questions the FOSS community asks by default: Who can read this code? Who can audit it? Who can fork it if the vendor disappears? Who owns the modifications built with public money?
Drawing on Nepal's judiciary as a case study, I'll show how the absence of open licensing, public source availability, and community-style governance around judicial software creates real risks-vendor lock-in, unauditable systems handling sensitive personal data, and institutions with no legal or technical path to independence from a single contractor.
I'll then turn to what FOSS communities- GNOME chief among them- already do well: transparent governance, copyleft and permissive licensing models, accessibility-first development, and contributor ecosystems that outlive any single vendor. I'll propose a legal framework, grounded in copyright, procurement, and data protection law, for how public institutions can responsibly adopt FOSS licensing and governance norms- not as ideology, but as a safeguard for democratic accountability.
Takeaway: open source isn't just software philosophy- it's public infrastructure policy.
Author(s) Bio
Licensed Advocate from Nepal Bar Council | LL.M. Scholar
| Category | Project organization and Governance |
|---|---|
| Pronouns | She/Her |
| Where are you located? | Kathmandu, Nepal |
| Do you need travel sponsorship from GNOME Foundation in order to join our event? | No |