NZ Ministry of Justice: We want open source

The New Zealand Ministry for Justice believes that open source software is a more stable, supportable, and cost-effective choice compared to proprietary solutions.

In the report, which can be found on the New Zealand Open Source Society site, the Ministry addresses traditional concerns about open source, and concludes that although "open source software (OSS) was once an extraordinary way of thinking, limited to academia and small guerrilla projects in a community of hackers" it "can lead to a more stable, supportable, and cost-effective IT environment, and should be pursued for pragmatic reasons".

The Ministry's new policy says: "Given two equivalent packages, one open and one proprietary, the OSS one would be the preferable choice for reasons of better supportability and lower lifecycle cost."

The report is not unequivocally in favour of community software, however: "Being free to choose an open source solution is not the same as allowing any developer to choose any OSS product for any purpose, which would lead to an unsupportable morass."

Want to know more?

    For all the latest news, analysis and opinion on open source, click here

According to the document, historical reasons for governments or enterprises not taking up open source, which include the lack of commercial support, poor user interfaces, perceived unreliability and legal risks, are no longer valid.

Open source has a lesser risk of support structures being removed, it says, with proprietary software being a greater risk because products could be cut or software providers could be shut down due to lack of profits.

The document also states that user interfaces have improved, citing Firefox as an example.

Open source is more reliable than proprietary software because the source code is available for everyone to check and improve -- and it is "far more difficult to introduce trojan horses or backdoors into OSS than into proprietary software", the report says.

However, advisor for analyst company IBRS, Dr Kevin McIsaac, told ZDNet Australia that this view is an open source myth which has been circulating for some time.

"There is no conclusive evidence that it is more reliable, but also none that it's less reliable," he said.

There have been cases, McIsaac said, where vulnerabilities have lain dormant in open source code for years.

As for legal risks, the report states that open source reduces the likelihood of copyright violation because the source is publicly viewable, adding: "Hundreds of copyright and patent infringement cases have been filed by software companies against one another over OSS, [but] none of these cases have involved users of the applications in question, so the significance of this legal risk to the Ministry is low."

This is a naïve statement, according to McIsaac. "It's not common to see end users sued, but that doesn't mean that they can't be."

Software company SCO Group is a notable example of such behaviour; it brought a lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler and other users in 2004 for using Linux software, which it alleged at the time, had SCO intellectual property embedded without certification.

On the Ministry's decision to use open source where possible due to its low cost, McIsaac said he would "certainly agree that in many instances you are not worse off", listing open source software which has been very beneficial to its users, including Apache servers and MySQL. However, the cost is not necessarily lower, he argued.

"The question about whether it's cheaper or not can be difficult to answer," he concluded. Although open source avoids the cost of licensing, he continued, there are ongoing costs and maintenance costs -- a view which the NZ Ministry of Justice seconds within the document.

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Advertisement

Talkback 7 comments

  1. Typical Anonymous -- 14/12/07

    As an Australian living in New Zealand, I am not surprised by this one bit. Open Source Software is exactly in line with the current Governments Socialistic policies. The notion that OSS is more cost effective to support is entirely idealistic. With a government that has steadily increased the number of Civil Servants by at least 10% per annum it is clear they are looking only for a solution that will be labour intensive and this in most cases is ensured by OSS.

    1. Ah, yeah right Roger Henderson -- 14/12/07

      I agree with your comment regarding the current NZ government.

      However you are completely incorrect in stating that using open source software ensures increased support costs. What do you base that on? Do you think that OSS software is intentionally written to be difficult to support?

      Walk into any NZ enterprise and you are bound to find one or more closed source software packages which incur massive support costs.

      Whether a piece of software is OS or closed source has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of supporting it.

    2. Re: Typical Anonymous -- 15/12/07

      Right. Meanwhile, as a _New Zealander_ living in New Zealand, I am a bit surprised.

      What with our "socialist" (ha!) government's love affair with DRM, imported DMCA-style laws, and everything.

    3. Cost advantages of FOSS and misattributed TCO costs Jose_X -- 15/12/07

      There is a misunderstanding among some.

      First, closed source requires that support be done by the company that has access to/ owns the code. This limits how the product can be supported. Open source allows for the product to be extended and customized beyond anything a closed source company can provide. This means that there is work for more locals with open source should they want to take advantage of it. It does not mean that they have to. A working system takes care of itself. Many FOSS systems like Linux are known to just take care of themselves, much unlike the Windows platform.

      The option to tinker and extend does not mean one should in all cases. The inability to control that free license to roam leads to some of the costs some see when starting off with open source.

      Second, some of the support costs that exist today with open source are transitory because so much of IT is still stuck with legacy Microsoft platforms. Linux TCO goes down as more acquire familiarity with Linux tools and methods. In migrating to open source, one usually encounters the one-time costs of some training and of migration of some documents, for example. The first is unavoidable to some extent (though it seems that moving to Vista will also incur these costs).

      The second is greater the closer one gets to Microsoft products. This is an added cost to Microsoft products that only rears its head when you decide to migrate away. Of course, Microsoft, being the great deceptive marketers that they are, attribute such costs to Linux when they measure TCO.

      The people writing this report appear to have made the mistake of attributing to open source the cost to break away from vendor lock-in, costs that belong to the Windows column as a one-time "Migrating away from Windows lock-in fee" which grows the more Windows products one uses and the longer one stays with Windows. This cost is only seen when one tries to measure the cost of migrating away (which is not large for everyone, but is very large for some). It grows every year and is what allows Microsoft to keep raising prices and getting away with it. The many Microsoft sponsored studies naturally make this mistake, too.

      The bottom line is that if you share code, you get less duplication of effort which means more are able to contribute to find bugs and add features and test the software or analyze it. You get more for less. Science works in a similar fashion, out in the open. Even companies doing in-house work resort to publishing their works many times and do joint ventures with academia. Where science can improve and learn from open source, or specifically from "free" software, is to develop something akin to the GPL. That license is the most responsible for the large amount of sharing we see of source code. Unlike many other licenses, it protects the owner of the code from being blind-sighted by a competitor that spends a huge amount of time copying the open stuff and adding their own secrets. That is not (legally) possible to do with the GPL license. Also, the GPL increases the value of the community because whom the community supports makes a real difference (this is related to the fact that the competitors cannot copy and add their own proprietary extensions to blind-side you; thus, everyone wants to be in the drivers seat and have the community work on code whose copyrights they own and whose direction they can partially dictate).

      The article brought up many great points that closed source companies will never be able to answer with a straight face.. like the much greater likelihood that exists of having backdoors in closed source software.

      It's good to see more people realizing that going FOSS pays. The more that join in, the better it is for everyone already at the party.

      And what a party it is becoming!

  2. We want open source Anonymous -- 14/12/07

    I'm using open source to read this article. On the soap box, in the locker room, go Tux go, Rah-Rah-Rah. OSS will be around until all the developers have been bought up by commercial entities, i.e.; Apple purchased CUPS. They'll catch on!

  3. lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler Anonymous -- 14/12/07

    "it brought a lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler ... alleged at the time, had SCO intellectual property embedded without certification."

    The Daimler-Chrysler case had nothing to do with whether Linux had Unix code in it.

    The contract with DC contained a requirement to certify the usage of SCO operating systems. DC had stopped using these several years ago and didn't see why it had to provide a list of serial numbers for the machines it was installed on when this list was empty.

    The Autozone case also wasn't about what was in Linux, it alleged when Autozone copied their own application from the old SCO systems to new Linux boxes they had also copied SCO libraries they alleged were required to run. SCOG could not show any such use of items from OpenServer, nor were any necessary.

  4. Typical ZDNet Anonymous -- 14/12/07

    This is typical of pretty much all ZDNet articles on Open Source. At least the last half of the article has to be anti Open Source. Funny how we don't see any articles about Microsoft having the same anti Microsoft split.

Add your opinion


Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Renai LeMay MyPerfect.com.au has potential
    Victorian Web start-up My Perfect has a strong story and rationale for why it will succeed. But it has to overcome some challenges and design flaws first.
  • Array Storage infrastructure on the tender track
    For a large-scale storage project, it's not uncommon to go out to tender for the best deal — but when was the last time you had to put together a tender for a document management room?
  • Array Apple has killed the video store; will ISPs be next?
    The Olympics are nearly over, and the Australian team deserves kudos for an excellent performance all around. Yet even as the Olympic sun sets on the Bird's Nest for the last time this weekend, millions of spectators around the world will be scanning their dials in the hope of finding something else to fill their viewing hours.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured