---------- Forwarded message ----------
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=29...
The Economic Times
Should governments use open source software?
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2002 01:28:06
The Linux versus Microsoft tussle over open-source software as against proprietary software has all the romance of a David versus Goliath battle. What is the reality? We present three views, two from industry and one from governmen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Javed Tapia, Director, Red Hat, India -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linux is an operating system, much like Microsoft Windows, Solaris or MacOS X. What sets Linux apart from most other operating systems is that it is an open source. This is generally taken to mean simply 'free'.
What this actually is much more than that and in practice means that the source code is available to all for modification, customisation, and improvement.
The use of Linux lowers the total cost of IT very significantly. The first advantage is the upfront price. A single fully supported package would cost significantly less than any proprietary alternatives.
Secondly, since Linux is under a general public licensing model it can be installed on many computers without any restrictions. Thirdly, a typical Linux CD contains not only the operating system, but a large variety of other software products that can be installed if needed.
Thus, without buying or downloading anything else, the user already has simple office suite, all the software needed for internet access, advanced networking capabilities, and so on.
Fourthly, a major argument against the implementation of proprietary software in the government sector is the dependency on proprietary software vendors.
Even in an open tender acquisition system, this requirement for compatibility with proprietary standards makes the system biased towards specific software vendors, perpetuating a dependency.
This dependency is perpetuated due to two reasons: first of all software owners have to upgrade the software, even if there is no internal reason or interest in doing so. Otherwise they risk facing a situation where their programs are not capable of process documents and files, created by newer versions of the same product.
The second coercion to upgrade evolving from this dependency situation is the ending of support for 'older' versions. This situation thus has major consequences for the cost side of IT management.
Through the passage of time, the proprietary software vendor does not have to fear competition, since the client has to take its product irrespective of any choice.
A typical, at least de facto, monopoly evolves in which the vendor dictates prices, conditions and quality. Open source provide liberation from such a situation as it offers no proprietary lock-in to any one vendor.
Fifthly, apart from the cost advantage, in a large installation such as government ministry or department, administration of all the computers in all locations can be a logistical nightmare. Linux provides many features that can make this administration much easier. Linux is a multi-user system which means that each file belongs to a specific user, and one user cannot alter another user's files unless latter assigns appropriate permissions. Linux has a number of features that make its use on a network much more secure.
Examples include a built-in firewall, the ability to allow certain services (e.g., file sharing) to be accessible only from within an internal network, software to detect attempted hacking, encrypted protocols for remote administration, file transfer, and so on.
An important selling point of Linux is its stability. Barring hardware malfunctions, Linux is highly stable. Operating system crashes are almost unheard of.
Proof of this being that today large enterprises and government bodies are adopting Linux in a big way for their mission-critical applications. For instance NASA and the ESA are using a customised version of Linux in a number of highly-sensitive space missions.
While it is possible to download Linux for free, make copies of the downloads and distribute them freely, this option includes no support from the supplier, although one can always make use of peer support groups and other self-proclaimed gurus.
To benefit from professional telephone or email support from the suppliers like Red Hat, one has to buy the operating system. This option normally includes more software than the free version, printed manuals, a number of days of support and software provided ready on CDs.
Finally, the situation after the migration to open source software will lead to lower life-cycle costs. Service, support and maintenance can now be contracted out to a range of suppliers, being placed in the competitive environment of a functioning marketplace.
The money saved in the service-oriented model of open source is then also normally spent within the economy or the governmental organisation. Unlike proprietary software situations where they are paid out as pure licence fees to large monopolistic multinational organisations.
The cost of the service oriented model of open source has a positive fallout on the domestic economy through the generation of local employment, spurring of local investment and ensuring local technological upgradation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjiv Mathur, Head of marketing, Microsoft, India: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin with let me first clarify the term 'Free software.' The word 'free' here specifically means what you can do with the software, not the price.
While you can obtain the basic software free, it is distributed and sold for a charge by companies who develop applications on it.
As a result, the pricing structure becomes very similar to commercial software as companies promoting free software charge for initial installation, support, training, etc.
Though the price debate is still under the microscope, the total cost of ownership underscores the fact that when you invest in software or hardware, there are a number of hidden costs that come into being. In the commercial and free software debate this element becomes of critical value as studies reveal that TCO of free software is quite high.
Microsoft believes in the overall benefit of the software ecosystem -- one that recognises the roles of government, education, private industry and end users to develop a healthy interaction that advances the public knowledge base, protects IP rights, furthers innovation and spurs further growth.
Our primary concern is not with open source as a whole, but with the GNU General Public License.
Its role in discouraging the development of commercial software threatens to undermine intellectual property, stifle innovation, and limit entrepreneurism while reducing choice in the market.
The best catalyst for software innovation and industry growth is the market place, supported by a strong regime for intellectual property protection. If an organisation is looking at moving over to free software, it is attracted by the short term benefits where the initial investment may be less than what they would need to do for commercial software.
However taking into account the longer term implications; they definitely need to think of the overall value proposition that a platform offers vis-a-vis the other.
They need to evaluate the basic acquisitions costs of free software vis-a-vis the long term costs which include integration costs between various components, backwards compatibility costs, collaboration with the partner community, trained manpower.
These costs are absorbed by the commercial software companies and the value is passed onto the customer. Moreover, once free software is installed, it also becomes a source of elevated security vulnerabilities for IT buyers, because the source code is freely available: no one person is responsible for it.
Microsoft's investments in e-governance in particular go back several years, and we were amongst the first IT companies to strike alliances with the central and state governments.
Today, we have MoUs with 18 state governments in India, and are doing pioneering work in developing e-governance applications and solutions. Some results of our successful partnerships include the Gyaandoot Project with the government of Madhya Pradesh, the Bhoomi Project in Karnataka and work with the Treasuries department of the government of Haryana.
We at Microsoft believe that a healthy software ecosystem is one built on choice with government agencies and all entities having the ability to select which software model fits their needs.
We believe that an open market approach where software products compete on their technical merits is the best model for the long-term growth of the software industries in all countries.
Software companies make heavy investments in R&D and if they do not have a chance to be compensated for their R&D spends, the cycle of sustainable innovation is disrupted and the health of the local software industry is jeopardised.
As a result, it would discourage any organisation to take on the effort of expensive R&D to improve upon the same as they would not see any benefit in doing so.
This would lead to a disruption in the software ecosystem. Both open source and commercial software are integral parts of the broader software ecosystem, and the two models have co-existed within the software ecosystem for decades.
We are not averse to sharing our source codes with our customers if it will be beneficial for them, however we are concerned about the potential implications of GPL.
The problems created by GPL result from the onerous licensing terms that it contains. The GPL requires that all third parties must have the right to make unlimited copies of GPL-licensed software and distribute them free of charge.
Obviously, it is extremely difficult for a software company to generate revenue by distributing a program if everyone has the right to distribute unlimited copies of the same program free of charge.
We believe that software has commercial value and attempts to render software free will ultimately undermine the software industry, causing less R&D to go into software development and ultimately less innovation for consumers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- R Gopalakrishnan, Secretary to chief minister, Madhya Pradesh: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more appropriate query would be why haven't governments done it earlier. The implications for public policy are fairly obvious. First is cost.
Commercial software costs money and open source software is free. Even after accounting for training and installation costs of open source software, it may still cost anywhere between one-half to one-tenth of commercial software depending on the application.
The ocean of unnecessary features in commercial software makes hardware expensive and obsolescence cycles shorter. Getting locked into all future upgrades again becomes serious issue.
By going along the open source path, a government will spend less money and receive the same or better features, functionality and performance.
Even the money that they spend will not be invested in product prices, but in training and developing tens of thousands of their own people creating a competence that will become a long-term asset for the state and its people.
The issue of cost is vitally tied to liberating India to become a land of one billion opportunities.Digital inclusion will become possible only with low-cost computers combined with open source software and broadband connectivity.
Some experts feel that even at a conservative estimate, the hardware-software savings with an open source based thin client can be 75% or more as compared with MS Windows-office fat desktop.
This is perhaps the reason why countries like China, Brazil, South Africa and Germany have chosen open source software and why it finds endorsement in major emerging markets.
The good old standard operating procedure of bureaucracies, when confronted with the unknown, was to ask a question "what is happening in other places"? In this case we seemed to have missed that question.
The issue of security is important for public policy. It is practically impossible to prove proprietary software is more secure than free software. Public systems will need to enshrine security and proprietary software that guards source codes inherently have a problem with governments that would not want their core systems to be dominated by external monopolies.
We must admit that e-governance, so far in India, has been a play in the margins, the eulogising of the cow that got sold on the internet. As we begin to put more citizen-services in the public domain the issue of costs and security will need to be squarely faced.
In the area of education, governments will need to enlist the computer as a tool to push the frontiers of learning to improve quality. We need to transit from the current obsession with mere computer literacy to generate cyber coolies for the market but see the potential of the medium to stimulate the inherent creativity of the human mind. Open source software has been the preferred medium in learning institutions because here students can investigate the medium they work with and construct knowledge.
What can be the down-side of a policy shift to open source software in India? The standard fear is about who will provide maintenance and support. This fear is negated by the fact that there is a blooming support service industry which is set to grow as policy gets proactive on open source software.
Why has not there been a national policy as yet on promotion of open source software? Part of the reason is the policy leadership of southern Indian states where the issues were focused more on IT production than on IT use.
Another part of the reason is fragmented bureaucratic turf. Given the poor penetration of information technology in India, there is now a growing realisation that India will need to move to a more comprehensive "ICT Policy for Development". While formulating such a policy through a multi-sectoral forum that brings together the ministries of planning, finance, HRD, CIT, etc., the ministry of science and technology may need to comprehensively address the question as to whether the "technology framework of a government" can be based on proprietary standards. That will hopefully settle this issue.
Public policy cannot be authored on the basis of freebies or initial sweeteners in terms of discounts offered by monopolies. It has to be informed by a long-term vision. The decision of the government of Madhya Pradesh to prefer open source software of Linux for its computer-enabled education programme was, like the chief minister stated, a matter of "choosing between a free software and a monopoly".
It ought not to be seen as a vote against any particular company. Inherent in the debate on open source software are issues of freedom, monopoly and choice of the buyer. The internet itself is premised on freedom, sharing and decentered activity. And freedom, is as of yet, one of the best ideas that humankind has produced. (ENDS)
Anybody care to relate GPL software with the science of Ayurveda ? (since Ayurveda is non-proprietory, and doesn't have any side effects ;) errm...strings attached :)
Just a thought. -energon
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
energon wrote:
Anybody care to relate GPL software with the science of Ayurveda ? (since Ayurveda is non-proprietory, and doesn't have any side effects ;) errm...strings attached :)
Well, we are on topic actually. Both have much in common. Ayurveda, like s/w, is knowledge based. Ayurveda, unlike some s/w licensing schemes, keeps the knowledge public. Here, it is like the GNU GPL.
In fact, two weeks after the ayurveda congress, (referred to by Khuzaima in another post in this thread), the WIPO ( hooo! ) held a 'forum' in Kochi, to discuss protection to Traditional Knowledge and Folklore !!!. To oversimplify the point they are trying to sell one of these days, you can 'copyright' Kathakali.
At this meet, somebody ( actually, a govt. official ) protested extending IP protection to Traditional Knowledge. His argument was in just in one powerful sentence - 'traditional knowledge is like free software - its creators intended it for benefit of the society, not (merely) for monetary benefit' !!! Whoever said that our babus are ignorant of the ground realities?
Mahesh T. Pai.
|| On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:00:51 +0530 || Mahesh T Pai paivakil@vsnl.net wrote:
mtp> energon wrote:
Anybody care to relate GPL software with the science of Ayurveda ? (since Ayurveda is non-proprietory, and doesn't have any side effects ;) errm...strings attached :)
mtp> Well, we are on topic actually. Both have much in common. Ayurveda, mtp> like s/w, is knowledge based. Ayurveda, unlike some s/w licensing mtp> schemes, keeps the knowledge public. Here, it is like the GNU GPL.
I would say it is more like the BSD license. Anyone can make propreitary solutions out of it.
On 28 Nov 2002 00:20:59 +0530, gnu@vsnl.net (Ramakrishnan M) wrote:
|| On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:00:51 +0530 || Mahesh T Pai paivakil@vsnl.net wrote:
mtp> energon wrote:
Anybody care to relate GPL software with the science of Ayurveda ? (since Ayurveda is non-proprietory, and doesn't have any side effects ;) errm...strings attached :)
mtp> Well, we are on topic actually. Both have much in common. Ayurveda, mtp> like s/w, is knowledge based. Ayurveda, unlike some s/w licensing mtp> schemes, keeps the knowledge public. Here, it is like the GNU GPL.
I would say it is more like the BSD license. Anyone can make propreitary solutions out of it.
Actually, we cannot liken it to any particular licensing scheme because there is no copyright!
The status of Ayurvedic knowledge can best be described as `in the public domain'.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:59:53PM +0530, Khuzaima A. Lakdawala wrote:
Actually, we cannot liken it to any particular licensing scheme because there is no copyright! The status of Ayurvedic knowledge can best be described as `in the public domain'.
The current status of Ayurveda is really in danger. People are taking patents on medicinal plants, which will prevent any body else to make new medicines out of it. I heard that somebody took patent on Turmeric which is a commonly used home-medicine.
Freedom is important to all range of knowledge. It should not be limited to the computer/software freedom alone.
Regards
On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 08:33, Dileep M. Kumar wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:59:53PM +0530, Khuzaima A. Lakdawala wrote:
Actually, we cannot liken it to any particular licensing scheme because there is no copyright! The status of Ayurvedic knowledge can best be described as `in the public domain'.
The current status of Ayurveda is really in danger. People are taking patents on medicinal plants, which will prevent any body else to make new medicines out of it. I heard that somebody took patent on Turmeric which is a commonly used home-medicine.
Freedom is important to all range of knowledge. It should not be limited to the computer/software freedom alone.
Regards
.''`. Dileep M. Kumar dileep@kumarayil.net
Actually, I feel the concept of freedom in general would strike a chord with most people in India, more easily than freedom in using software. Although our country is supposed to have won freedom from foreign powers more than half a century back, many people would recognise that our freedoms are severely curtailed. For instance, the freedom to information. It is a herculean task in many places to obtain a tiny bit of information from the government. For many people, even the freedom to draw water from a nearby well is denied. I remember long back somebody had written in a local magazine that by enclosing open grounds and creating stadiums, we are denying young people the freedom to play. I see this happening now when my son and his friends are forced to play on the road, while a reasonably large area is enclosed with walls and lying vacant nearby. Why, in this place, the parents are the main culprits in denying children the freedom to play, right from the age of five or six years. They are only supposed to study. God knows what kind of adults they would grow up to become.
Regards Sasi
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:33:43 +0530, "Dileep M. Kumar" dileep@gmx.net wrote:
The current status of Ayurveda is really in danger. People are taking patents on medicinal plants, which will prevent any body else to make new medicines out of it. I heard that somebody took patent on Turmeric which is a commonly used home-medicine.
Actually, one can't patent the naturally occuring plant itself. The patent Dileep is referring to would either be a "process" patent or a "product" patent. Of course, that too would be a ridiculous patent to grant because the said "process" has been a part of traditional (mostly unwritten) knowledge and the patentee simply formalises the knowledge (usually using legalese which sometimes even reasonably literate people cannot decipher, let alone adivasis who otherwise have known about the said "process" through generations!). Unfortunately, WIPO and its cohorts think otherwise.
Freedom is important to all range of knowledge. It should not be limited to the computer/software freedom alone.
Absolutely. In fact, the free software cause pales when compared to the fight for keeping traditional knowledge in the public domain and preventing it from being hijacked through patents. The repercussions of the latter are indeed mind boggling!
Khuzaima A. Lakdawala wrote:
The status of Ayurvedic knowledge can best be described as `in the public domain'.
I realise that I did not make myself clear. 1. I was quoting somebody else; a govt. servant at that and I agree with him. 2. He sais it the sense that both ayurveda (he was specificaly speaking of Traditional Knowledge) and 'free s/w' (whatever he meant by that) use knowledge for benefit of the public; making money is secondary.
Mahesh T. Pai.
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 16:19, energon wrote:
Anybody care to relate GPL software with the science of Ayurveda ? (since Ayurveda is non-proprietory, and doesn't have any side effects ;) errm...strings attached :)
A good example that one of my friends was giving was a comparison of Free Software to Mathematics.
Science wouldn't be where it is if a mathematician said, "I wont tell you how the theorem works inside. I will just give you the proof". There is no way we can extend the theorem to form postulates nor can we find ways of seeing if the theorem is correct.
Just what mathematics means to science, software (which is an application of mathematics) means to engineering and technology (which is an application of science). Imagine what would have happened to science if mathematicians refused to expose their theorems. Imagine how advanced technology would be if all software enabled engineers to extend the software.
-Suraj
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 02:49:55 -0800 (PST), energon energon0@yahoo.com wrote:
Anybody care to relate GPL software with the science of Ayurveda ?
The November 2002 issue of `Science India' was a Special Issue on Ayurveda (to coincide with the World Ayurveda Congress in Kochi). The title of the Editorial?
AYURVEDA, IPR AND GNU
So there!
I don't know if the magazine has an online presence. But, fortunately for us, the Executive Editor of that magazine is a subscriber of this list and he will probably post that nice editorial to this list after seeing this :)
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 16:19, energon wrote:
Anybody care to relate GPL software with the science of Ayurveda ? (since Ayurveda is non-proprietory, and doesn't have any side effects ;) errm...strings attached :)
Just a thought. -energon
Strange coincidence: Here is the editorial in the current issue of the magazine Science India:
Ayurveda, IPR and GNU
Ayurveda is the science of living a healthy life, developed and propagated by ancient Indian sages like Susrutha, Charaka and scores of others. It was not just about how to cure illnesses, but also about how to live in a manner that helps the body to retain its health. As such, it was knowledge useful to everyon, in fact, required knowledge for everyone.
Ayurveda made use of plant and other material commonly available in most places. It is said that hardly any plant in the world is devoid of medicinal properties. There is the story about an unusual test given to his students by a teacher of Ayurveda: he used to ask his pupils to go into the open world and return with the first plant they find that is of no medicinal value. Only those who returned empty handed qualified to pass.
Traditionally, practitioners of Ayurveda used to give prescriptions explaining the method of preparation of the medicines to be used by the patient. It is believed that ayurvedic medicines are more effective when freshly prepared. Only when people, especially in the urban areas, found it difficult to obtain the necessary ingredients and go through the cumbersome procedures involved in preparing the medicines, did readymade medicines become popular. Even today there are ayurvedic physicians who recommend that freshly prepared medicines be used, when possible. There never was any restriction on the right to prepare medicines. Naturally, when the preparation is done by the near and dear of the patient, they would take special care to ensure quality. There was no need for any brand name to 'ensure' quality. There was no IPR. The only restriction was that knowledge would be given only to those who deserve it. One of the conditions used to be, and even today is in many tribal communities, that the knowledge acquired would be used onluy for helping others, not for one's own gain.
Look how things have changed with the introduction of the patent regime and IPR. Knowledge has now become a commodity to be carefully marketed to maximise one's own benefits. Even life saving drugs are not allowed to be manufactured freely for fear that the benefits that should accrue to a few individuals would diminish. Knowledge today has become a means of exploitation. And restrictive regimes like the IPR only help the exploiters.
There is a close parallel in the case of something as modern as computer software. There was a time when programs for running on computers used to be written by people wo work on computers, and they used to freely exchange these programs, thus saving a lot of work in each individual programmer rewriting them. With software companies restricting the use and exchange of program codes, this freedom was gradually eroded, until companies started taking legal action against users who dared to go against their licensing norms. This was when the movement against restrictions in software began and the Free Software Foundation was established by Richard Stallman and others. Today the world is moving towards software freedom, although laws favouring proprietary software still exist in most countries.
IPR and other restrictive regimes help a few people to exploit the vast majority. And they use the knowledge they have carefully preserved to achieve this. The only means of countering this is by the widespread dissemination of knowledge, without any restriction. The software community started doing this through the GNU General Public Licence. The scientific community already has made a few steps in this direction. Images taken by astronomical telescopes are made available over the Internet after one year. At least a few journals have started putting their articles for free download after a specific duration. Some of the popular magazines like Scientific American and New Scientist make available a part of their material for free download over the Internet. There are two free web-based encyclopedias, www.nupedia.com and www.wikipedia.com.
The only way to counter the threat of IPR, and stop exploitation through knowledge, is to make our knowledge freely available for anyone to use. But for that, we have to forego the benefits that exploitation through IPR could bring us. After all, our society has survived with this kind of freedom for centuries and even today there are many who make a living out of Ayurvea. IPR does protect the intellectual heritage of societies, so that no one can patent any Ayurvedic medicine. Let us put out all knowledge related to Ayurveda on the Web. Let those who want to make the medicines themselves do so. Let those who want to make and sell them do so. Let Ayurveda flourish, and IPR perish.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=29...
The Economic Times
Should governments use open source software?
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2002 01:28:06
[...]
Sanjiv Mathur, Head of marketing, Microsoft, India:
To begin with let me first clarify the term 'Free software.' The word 'free' here specifically means what you can do with the software, not the price.
It is indeed heartening to hear this clarification. But the rest of what Sri Mathur says is Microsoft's standard (boilerplate) FUD about swatantra software in general and the GPL in particular. It has already been debunked:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25157.html http://pimientolinux.com/peru2ms/ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html
-
Dileep M. Kumar -
energon -
Frederick Noronha -
gnu＠vsnl.net -
klak＠giasbm01.vsnl.net.in -
Mahesh T Pai -
Suraj Kumar -
V. Sasi Kumar