The software industry generally means firms that develop software and charge for it. This includes games developers and film special effects creators. Examples in Australia include Mincom, Ratbag and Animal Logic. These are high value firms that create valuable IP, jobs and export dollars. A necessary corollary of this is that those companies protect the source code that embodies their investments of work and expertise.
By comparison, open source firms are generally either commodity firms that perform relatively low-skill installation and support of computers and programs, or large multinationals such as IBM. Open source advocate Russell, who appeared before the committee (Hansard, 2004a: 49), is actually an IBM employee. I discuss the nature of open source interest groups in a later section.
In the 20 April 2004 hearings before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, open source activists Zymaris and D'Aprano spoke of the alleged threat the FTA posed to open source, representing it as a threat to the Australian software industry, which is not the case. Wilkie, Adams and Senator Marshall tried to clarify this with the following series of questions:
Wilkie: Given that the IT industry is going to be so important for economic development, does the problem that you are faced with have the potential to cripple the industry in Australia, making Australia uncompetitive in the software business? (Hansard, 2004b: 82)
Adams: Would you say that hundreds of companies like yours, which could be affected by these changes, really did not have an input into this agreement? (Hansard, 2004b: 87)
Senator Marshall: I want to understand the size of the industry you are talking about. ... Did you say that there are hundreds of other companies in your realm? ...If the worst case scenario that you have painted here comes to fruition, what impact will it have on you? ... Would it stop you dead in your tracks or would there be a slow decline? (Hansard, 2004b: 88)
Zymaris's answers to these questions were not dishonest, but they avoided the important issues. Most Australian software firms are indeed small, as Zymaris points out, but it's not true that they all support open source, nor that they fear the DMCA. Most members of the recently formed Open Source Industry Association are commodity firms and include booksellers, lawyers and casual consultants.
A similar misunderstanding went uncorrected in the hearings of 17 May 2004 before the Senate Select Committee, when the Chair, Senator Cook, asked open source activist Scott whether he was representing the Australian software industry.
Scott, what I took you to say in your initial remarksââ,¬"and maybe I took it wrongly, so you can correct meââ,¬"is that you are in effect talking on behalf of the Australian software industry and their views. (Hansard, 2004a: 23)
The honest answer to this question would have been -No," but Scott instead said he was talking for the open source movement. When Senator Cook mistakenly interpretated that as a -Yes" and asked Scott questions about the likely impact on the Australian software industry, Scott answered in terms of open source rather than Australian industry.
Scottââ,¬"Open source. I am not here in an official capacity as an agent for them, but it is what I have gleaned from talking to people in the industry.
CHAIRââ,¬"Are you putting to us that in some way, if this agreement were to go through, by limiting access to copyrighted material it would act as a barrier to the development of the software industry in Australia?
Scottââ,¬"Potentially, of the open source software industry in Australia, yes. CHAIRââ,¬"Potentially.
Scottââ,¬"And I guess, actually, it is not limited to the open source software industry. What I am saying is that these provisions could be used as a barrier to the development of the industry, but to be effective they would have to be used by an incumbent. (Hansard, 2004a: 23)
6%
3%
"Open Source is bad for Australia" is such a blanket statement that I would have to disagree.
The author makes valid points about GPL on occasions hindering, rather than enhancing business, but GPL is not the only Open Source model. GPL is often used with the attitude "I am not making any money out of publishing this code, so why should anyone else." Unfortunately, R&D investment can not be warranted "commercially" on a GPL system, because the entity spending the money does not get any benefit (except knowing they might make the world a better place).
There are also instances where Open Source would be detrimental to commercial interests in Australia. But Open Source often brings benefits, which is why I disagree. One of the problems with proprietary source code is that if the particular vendor goes bankrupt, or a relationship sours with a vendor, your data is effectively held hostage (Most of the time, you can not simply port to another vendor's package). Whilst open source doesn't guarentee flexibility (there may be binding contracts even in open source), in my view you are certainly more secure.
Secondly, many open source products are free. This is not co-incidental, but a consequence of GPL and alike. In fact, this is one of the factors hinted at in the article. I would like to suggest that Open Source classes, databases, languages, APIs and alike can significantly reduce development time. Most open source products have public documentation, so they don't need to be re-documented. Furthermore, not having to pay license fees can assist a software company to be more profitable.
Thirdly, on following on from point two, cheaper development costs inevitably lead to more competitive markets and cheaper prices to the end user. This makes software more accessable to Australians.