FOSS does not mean freedom
by Blogie • 9 March 2007
I am just like most IT professionals in the Philippines today: I make use of both Open Source and proprietary software. I have Windows XP running on my desktop, and I make use of MS Office applications. At the same time, I deploy Web applications built with PHP onto Apache-run servers. I love the productivity that Microsoft programs afford me; and at the same time I bask in the power of open-source when I delve into PHP and MySQL. The freedom (and responsibility!) that I have when coding for open-source platforms is exhilarating.
But, I categorically do not support the current form of the FOSS bill, otherwise known as the Free / Open Source Software Act.
First off, I believe that government has no business in creating monopolies. On the face of it, the FOSS Bill could be lauded for its very pro-Filipino stance. But if you analyze it, if enacted into law, it could seriously harm the livelihood of many Filipino IT professionals. Promoting open-source software is a noble undertaking in itself. But creating an Act using Open Source as an excuse to get back at proprietary software… that is just not right.
Government is not in the position to dictate anything. (We abhor dictators, don’t we?) Even dictating to itself. Section 6 of the Bill states that government is to use only FOSS, except in extraordinary circumstances. What of fairness? What of Filipinos who are in the business of providing proprietary software solutions?
And by "proprietary software" I mean programs that software developers create and package for commercial use. This bill also states that any program sold to the government (the 3 branches and all agencies under, plus all public educational institutions, plus all government-owned or -controlled corporations) should necessarily operate in open-source platforms. So, there goes business for software houses that specialize in, say, non-Linux platforms out the window.
Let’s say you’re a software developer. You create, for example, a piece of software for your municipality’s business licensing bureau. The FOSS Act dictates that your municipal LGU will be free to derive new programs from your creation and make use of it or distribute it, without having to compensate you at all. So what’s to stop your mayor from giving the software you worked hard at to the neighboring town, whose mayor happens to be his kumpadre? Further, you will be bound by the FOSS stipulations to provide eternal support and upgrades. Knowing how, even at present, the government is the most difficult client, would you want to sell to government agencies if this bill is enacted into law?
The FOSS Act is flawed because it is prejudiced. It will kill off creativity among local developers. It will discourage software publishing, which hasn’t even taken off in our country.
Let us join hands in promoting open-source initiatives. Not only that, let’s promote other software solutions that are robust yet inexpensive. Let’s help publicize the use of Ubuntu, Open Office, etc. But, let’s keep the playing field on a level. No law should be enacted that will cause government to be prejudiced against any individual or group. If Bayan Muna (whose party-list congressional representative authored this bill) is truly pro-Freedom, then Rep. Casiño should take a deeper look at his bill, and then try to see the bigger picture. Information technology is all about freedom. This FOSS act is not.
More to read:
If the government paid the software development — they own it. The copyright belongs to the government — you are a paid programmer. Which in the same sense also apply to the company a programmer is working for. If that goverment wants to give that to other Municipality — it’s their decision.
If it was made off-the-shelf then they have to abide by the agreement stipulated in the license.
FOSS is not owned by anyone — so there’s big fallacy to speak of promoting “monopolies”. Far from it, it is the proprietary vendor that wants monopoly. More often than not, proprietary systems continue to own the program that will cripple the government looking for other alternatives. The freedom to adjust the system according to what fit best on the current demand “always” remain in the hands of that single solution provider — creating “lock-in”.
Through FOSS, everybody in the IT sector have an equal playing field because implementation is not obscured, yet still maintain a secure system.
It may throw out systems that “locks-in” the government, crippling FREEDOM. But is sure will not throw out any Software House willing to adopt FOSS solutions and extend the current FOSS infrastructure placed in by the government. And, FOSS is available to anybody, almost at no cost; therefore it’s a question of *willingness* to adjust in the changes of the IT landscape or stuck in the Traditional method of developing softwares.
If there is a way for Government to increase usage of IT without the nuisance of restrictive licensing fees and promote innovations from local IT industry, then the FOSS bill is worth fighting for.
So, no more software publishing for the Philippines, is that it? Filipino developers will no longer be able to create software and package it for commercial use?
This thinking that the government is “locked in” by proprietary software…. It’s a decision they make, if they choose proprietary software. If they choose open-source programs, then I suppose they won’t be “locked in,” according to your logic. So where’s the problem there? It’s simply a choice. Does that have to involve a law? Again my point: the current form of the FOSS bill is prejudicial to non-open-source software development. Laws are supposed to be fair to ALL.
The use of FOSS has to be market-driven. When there is a bigger demand for it, it will flourish. It shouldn’t have to take legislation for it to advance.
Allow me to reiterate: I am not against FOSS per se. It is the Casiño bill in its current form that I cannot abide.
While I’m a fan, user, and advocate of FOSS, I don’t agree with section 10.3 that states it is illegal for an HEI to offer a certification program training to students if it doesn’t offer a similar program for FOSS. This is the part that will truly prejudice the government against other entities and it should be removed or reformulated.
As for the other sections though, I’m not so bothered. Unless of course if they have a different definition for “preference”. The way section 6 is worded is that the gov’t. will prefer FOSS but will not strictly require it if it’s impractical.
Hello, Mark. Section 6 is worded more strongly that that, IMHO. I feel about it just as the way you feel about Section 10. Whether gov’t uses FOSS or not should be a decision, a choice. But it should not be made a law.
Out of curiosity, other than creating a law, what other avenues does the government have to require its agencies to prefer FOSS unless impractical?
Well, what about setting a budget? Like i keep saying, it should not have to take a law. IMHO, government’s action to undermine other providers (in this case, non-Open Source) is illegal and prejudicial. Government should remain neutral and fair.
hi! I didn’t read your post so it is expected that this comment is not related to your post.
this is just to inform you that your entry to the Pinoy Bloggers Directory has been approved.
tnx
Thanks Southern Leyte Blogger! And I got your email too.
I’m not so sure if its illegal though. If one views the government as a corporation (which in many aspects is), it wouldn’t be so different from, let’s say, PLDT or Davao Light issuing a company-wide policy stating that it will only accept services from FOSS providers from now on. There’s nothing illegal or prejudicial about that. It’s just that their requirements have changed such that only FOSS can fulfill them. One of their requirements could be flexibility in choosing a provider. By choosing a closed-source provider they are practically locking themselves in with that vendor whereas by going open source and using open standards they still have the ability to switch to another vendor if the services of the current one doesn’t suite them.
Also I’m not sure if this is undermining closed-source providers since the bill doesn’t prevent them from operating within the Philippines. The bill just says the government won’t avail of their services if they can manage it. On the other hand, as to how big of a blow it will be for these providers if they lose the government as their customer, I have no idea. But then again, they’re probably not that pleasant of a customer to deal with anyway!
P.S. send my advanced birthday greetings to your sister!
Mark, i agree that the government could very well issue a blanket order that they should use only open-source software. So why don’t they just do that? If it were an executive order, it would be more palatable. But a law?? Again I say, it shouldn’t have to take a law to have this accomplished.
Remember: when we talk of closed-source providers, we’re not just talking about the multinationals here. Filipino software developers who do software publishing and create applications for commercial use — they are included here. So if this Bill doesn’t undermine the likes of, say, Oracle or SAP, fine. They could probably care less. But what about our local software developers who do not practice Open Source directives? The Bill, if it becomes law, will be very prejudicial towards them.
P.S. She’s Manila-based now, Mark. But I’ll send her your greet.
Please forgive my ignorance, Blogs, but what is the difference between an executive order and a law on FOSS. How would this change the nature of the “rule” or whatever they call it in politics. (Never had any interest in the area of politics before)
I wouldn’t call myself an expert in politics either, Mark. But from the way I see it, if it’s an EO then it would be just like how you described it: the gov’t like a corporation. But if it’s a law, well, that’s way different IMHO.
Edwin M of CDITE-XI remarked that, if the gov’t espoused “promoting” FOSS, no problem at all. But “mandating” it is another thing altogether.