---------- 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)