Wendy, spokesman and policy counsel for the Initiative for Software Choice (ISC), says he just wants to make sure government agencies don't unduly favour open-source or free programs over proprietary software.
"We want a process that is not based on automatic preferences," Wendy said.
The ISC is by far the most vocal opponent of a growing trend: Legislation that, if enacted, would all but prohibit government agencies from purchasing proprietary software for their own use. The ISC asserts that such legislation could jeopardise the future of the worldwide commercial software industry.
Because of the size of governments' ever-growing information technology budgets, billions of dollars are at stake. ("Open source" means that, at the very least, the source code is available, and "free software" means that anyone who modifies the code may, if they distribute it, be required to disclose details of the modifications.)
So far, the ISC says more than 70 such proposals have surfaced in U.S. state capitals and in about two dozen other countries. The reasons for the initiatives are complex and varied, but some governments have cited Microsoft's relatively expensive licensing terms. Other measures in some foreign countries are probably driven by issues such as anti-American sentiment.
No open-source preference legislation in the U.S. has yet become law, though the ISC is tracking proposals in Texas, Oregon and Delaware. On its "Open Source Now" Web site, Red Hat posts a copy of a California proposal--never introduced -- that says government-purchased software must offer "unrestricted access" to source code.
"We've managed to stop the bills that have been put up so far," says Bob Kramer, ISC's executive director. "We would like to think that we can defeat all of them. But there have been bills passed in the provincial level in Brazil, and there have been two administrative rules that have been enacted--essentially administrative decrees or what we would call regulations--in Spain."
One proposal in Peru's national legislature that has not been enacted defines its objective to "employ exclusively free software in all the systems and computing equipment of every state agency."
Free software is defined as follows: unrestricted use of the program, unrestricted access to the source code, unrestricted ability to make copies and redistribute them and unrestricted ability to alter the software. This definition is extremely similar to the GNU General Public License, used in such popular software as Linux, Perl, and MySQL.
Kramer rattles off a slew of other examples from memory: "The South Australia government in Adelaide has introduced a piece of legislation this year that is a hard preference (for open source) bill. There was a bill introduced in Portugal this year that is locked in committee. The Bulgarian federal government introduced a bill. The Ukrainian federal government introduced a bill. The finance minister in Estonia is starting to talk about saving money, but he hasn't introduced anything. The ministry of communications in Korea has talked about this, but there have been no legislative proposals that have come to the floor so far. The federal government in Brazil had introduced a bill last year. Before the elections this year, they hadn't introduced a bill, but they've talked about a very strong pro-open-source policy."
ISC's mysterious origins
Like many similar inside-the-Beltway groups, the ISC has no formal structure: It's not a true organization with a dedicated staff and board of directors. Instead, it's a part-time project of the Computing Technology Industry Association. Now about 20 years old, CompTIA is best known for its certification programs, which test knowledge in areas such as technical training, Microsoft network administration and even Linux competency.
While CompTIA is based in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, it runs a nine-person lobbying outpost in a nondescript Arlington, Virginia, office building, just a few miles from downtown Washington, D.C. From that outpost, five lobbyists devote at least part of their day to the ISC. Another five state lobbyists based in California, New York, Florida, Connecticut and Illinois work part-time for the ISC. The group also employs international lobbyists, with an emphasis on Europe.
The ISC's critics in the open-source and free-software movements claim the initiative is little more than a front for Microsoft. Kramer, the ISC's director, is vague about the origins of his initiative. "When we were first approached by a couple of companies to take a look at it, we realised it was a big issue," Kramer said. "If these procurement proposals went through, a lot of our resellers would have big problems. They would have to make changes to their business models or be left out of the market...We are one of the few IT trade associations with true international reach. So it seemed like a good fit."
That begs the question: A good fit for whom? What companies proposed this to CompTIA? ISC's critics in the open-source and free-software movements claim that the initiative is little more than a front for Microsoft, which has identified free software as a deadly serious competitive threat.
"I'd rather not go into that," Kramer says, in response to my questions. "Obviously, Microsoft was one of them."
Later in the conversation, Kramer adds: "Microsoft is a major proponent and a driver, but there are also major companies that are equally interested in this and strongly involved in this." He also names EDS, Intel, and Wind River, the world's biggest creator of embedded software applications. The ISC's other source of support, which makes a lot of sense: Resellers, who currently make a handsome living by marking up commercial software and selling it to state and federal governments.
On Friday, Microsoft refused to disclose how much money, if any, it gives directly to the ISC. A Microsoft spokesman did tell me: "Microsoft is a founding member and maintains a strong commitment to the ISC. This commitment is based on Microsoft's support of the initiative's belief that it is important to allow multiple software development, business and licensing models to compete on their merits and without government regulations that would seek to prefer one model over another."
You know what? That argument, at least for Microsoft and the ISC, makes a heck of a lot of sense.
Sure, maybe Redmond is being sneaky in how they created (or co-created) and may or may not be funding the ISC. But enacting laws that mandate just open-source software would create serious problems. First, open-source software is frequently superior to proprietary software, but not always.
It's nutty to prevent bureaucrats--and, by extension, taxpayers--from getting the best product they can. Second, a realistic cost-benefit analysis would take into account the total cost of support and maintenance--not just the sticker price--and the person making the purchase is typically in the best position to perform that calculation.
Third, as Tim O'Reilly points out, debating such laws opens the door for a closed-source counterattack, in which proprietary vendors could try to enact laws that limit open-source or free software.
For its part, Microsoft denies that it would favor a hypothetical law that was the opposite of the current proposals and established a legal preference for closed-source software: "No. Microsoft firmly believes that software should be procured on the basis of functionality, performance, security, value and cost of ownership--and should avoid any categorical preferences for open-source software, commercial software, free software or any other software development model."
Critics reply
So, what's the problem? If all Microsoft and the ISC want is purchasing neutrality, that's good, right? Aren't Linux aficionados supposed to be willing to go head-to-head against Windows?
ISC's Kramer says: "If the economics go in a particular direction, we're good with that. If that's Linux, we're fine with that. Those are purchasing decisions." Jonathan Zuck of the Association for Competitive Technology, an ISC member, adds: "Right now, there's no barrier to (governments) using open-source software. Just compete. If you like this open-source product, use it. If you like this closed-source product, use it."
Open-source evangelist Bruce Perens, on the other hand, says it's not that simple. He says the ISC is going beyond its "neutrality" claim and is lobbying against open-source software. He's created a rival organisation, Sincere Choice, to oppose it.
"I think that the reason they should be paid attention to is because they come out against stuff that is not a hard preference law," Perens says. "If they limited their objections to hard preference laws, there would be fewer problems with them...Hard preference bills are a red herring. They're very rarely offered seriously by any government. What's offered instead are bills that say, 'We'll consider open source.' The ISC comes in and says the next step is hard preferences. They paint a draconian scenario for something that isn't draconian."
Perens adds: "Their message is not just that open-source preference laws are bad. They argue against open source in general."
We saw a partial example of this in the ISC's campaign last fall to convince the U.S. Department of Defense to ignore an earlier report that touted open-source software's utility and prevalence inside the military. "While the law on this matter remains untested, it makes sense for companies to be highly risk-averse in this area, striking a more defensive posture when confronted with software development that may implicate GPL (General Public License) code or similar coding environments," the ISC said in a letter. "Commercial and hybrid software developers generally do not want to risk losing their investment."
For his part, Perens doesn't seem to willing to say whether he supports a "hard preference" law. In response to a question about regional governments in Brazil and Spain already moving in that direction, he replies: "Why shouldn't they have the freedom to make that choice? I don't think it's a good choice at the national level, because it drums up too much opposition." As for his own preference, he mentions that he only has one computer that runs Windows--exclusively for Quicken and Turbotax--and says, "I personally have made my choice."
Well, that might be the right one for him. And it might not. Just like individual users can, government agencies should be able to make their own procurement choices. Why not let open-source and closed-source products compete in a free (government) market, and let the best-fitting software win?
ISC and CompTIA have deep vested interests in protecting those who finance them.
The following approach however, outlined in an Open Source Victoria press release offers the best middle-ground.
The key issue here is that the status-quo is untenable; governments are already mandating proprietary protocols and document standards. This is wrong and needs to be changed.
- -
OSV Supports Open Computing for Government
July 8, Melbourne, Australia. Open Source Victoria (OSV), an industry cluster focused on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) believes the most appropriate manner in which to encourage competition and promote interoperability in the IT industry in Australia is through support for open document and data formats and protocol standards.
"Recently some governments, both within Australia and abroad, have been looking at legislation that promotes the use of open source software," OSV member Rodd Clarkson noted. In Germany alone, over 500 government agencies have adopted Open Source Software in recent times.
OSV appreciates that governments recognize the excellent value for money and the huge potential for a better return on investment offered by Open Source technologies. OSV believes that Open Source is the best means through which control of system platforms and application technologies can be vested with governments, rather than a single vendor.
Mr Clarkson observed, "For too many years, government departments have unfairly stipulated proprietary platforms and applications which are only available from a single vendor." Fellow member Ben McGinnes adds, "The current arrangement hamstrings competitors, limits innovation and costs the taxpayers. A change towards more open computing in government in needed."
Mr Clarkson adds, "OSV knows that Open Source is a viable competitor within the government marketplace. All we are asking is that Open Source software be given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, along with the proprietary, closed source technologies."
Open Source Victoria is confident that, given a level playing field, the Open Source development and distribution model is capable of delivering software that is both technically adept and of better value.
Open Source Victoria advocates:
* That governments should mandate the use of open, documented and inter-operable file formats and data communication protocols, rather than specific products or suppliers.
* That it is in government departments' best interests to choose technologies which have implementations from more than one source, boosting the department's tactical leverage and hedging against any single supplier gaining lock-in and price gouging mechanisms. Therefore this should be a formal requirement in departmental requisition policies.
* Preference should be given to technologies for which there is is a case to be made that local industry can benefit, and that imports can be replaced, helping improve our woeful balance of trade in ICT.
OSV consultations show that these types of policies are non party political and will garner widespread support across the political spectrum. OSV maintains that if this combination of purchasing policies is adopted, Free and Open Source Software such as Linux will be the best route to fulfilling these requirements, but that all technologies can compete openly and fairly.
About Open Source Victoria.
Open Source Victoria is an Industry Cluster consisting of over 60 Victorian firms and developers which provide services and technology related to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS.) Open Source Victoria offers marketing, advocacy and information referral services, and aims to raise the profile of FOSS in Victoria and work with other similar organisations across Australia.
http://www.osv.org.au/