Open source bill – it’s about time

IF all goes well, the country will get its first open source bill, courtesy of Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño. It’s about time.

The country can reap a good number of tangible benefits from free and open source software (FOSS) and it’s time the government did more to encourage its use.
Writing for the UNDP’s International Open Source Network, Kenneth Wong notes six distinct benefits that governments can derive from FOSS:

1.The country can reduce reliance and spending on imports. Most proprietary operating systems and business applications come from the United States, and developing countries such as the Philippines end up importing millions of dollars worth of software licenses. On the other hand, FOSS by its very nature can be obtained at no or very little cost, resulting in substantial foreign exchange savings.

2.The local software industry can be more quickly and inexpensively developed. While it’s true that open source projects generally require more technical support, money spent on these services tends to stay within the country instead of going to multinational companies. On top of this, the barrier to entry in the FOSS world is very, very low, and the collaborative nature of the open source community and the huge archives of technical information make it easy for students and software engineers to learn by experimenting.

3.National security is better protected. Because the source code – human readable instructions – is available in FOSS, government engineers can determine exactly what a program does. In contrast, proprietary software is usually delivered as binary code that is difficult to interpret, leaving open the possibility of secret back doors into the system.

4.Open standards prevent vendor lock-in. Proprietary systems foster dependency on one vendor. In subsequent bids, the need for new systems to be compatible with the products of that vendor skews the process in his favor. FOSS does the opposite and gives end-users a wider choice.

5.Software piracy can be dramatically reduced. Because FOSS is free or available at a much lower cost than proprietary software, it removes the economic reason for making unauthorized copies of programs. This in turn should reduce the pressure that the United States exerts on countries where piracy is high.
6.Programs can be easily localized. Because of the open nature of FOSS, users can readily modify the software to suit the unique requirements of a particular cultural region, regardless of its economic size. In contrast, proprietary software companies will not localize a program unless there are enough buyers to make it worth their while.

Given these benefits, is it any wonder that an increasing number of local and national governments around the world have passed laws or adopted policies to encourage the use of free and open source software?

Earlier this month, Peru became the latest country to pass a law encouraging the use of FOSS, despite heavy lobbying by Microsoft and the US government.
Other countries that have actively pursued the use of FOSS in government are Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, Thailand, Venezuela and Vietnam.

We don’t know as yet what shape the Casiño bill will take, so it’s impossible to discuss it in any detail. This early, however, it’s important that the bill is carefully drafted and promoted along pragmatic and not just ideological lines. It’s also crucial that the bill gain broad, non-partisan support that transcends politics.
I learned of the bill when someone in the congressman’s office floated a trial balloon on the Philippine Linux Users Group mailing list, seeking feedback and recommendations.

Given the venue, it was a little surprising to see the vigorous debate that ensued after the initial post by Carlos Panlilio Garcia, a legislative staff officer in Casiño’s office.
Most of those who argued against such a bill were worried that it would discriminate against proprietary software companies such as Microsoft and give them basis to complain about restrictive trade practices.

Others worried that free and open source software solutions in some areas were not as good as proprietary programs and that forcing the issue would be counterproductive, or worse, set the stage for a spectacular failure.

Still others said they were worried that such a law would rob government agencies of the freedom to choose the best solution, regardless of its source.
I felt this was mostly fear and uncertainty talking.

All of these concerns can be addressed with planning and preparation – and we can learn from the experiences of so many countries that have gone ahead of us. With so much at stake, now is the time for the open source community to come together, not to pull apart.

Dear Mr. Wong,

I think it is high time that the Philippines should reap the benefits of having a FOSS IT environment.  If other countries, even highly developed ones, have formal legistlations towards this end why we can not have such. People used pirated softwares because of the high cost of licensed ones. I just hope that our lawmakers will support the proposed bill of Rep. Casiño and not be influenced by lobbyist of the major software industry players. The government should start advocating towards FOSS and be decisive to initiate the change by introducing it in government offices.

Driggs Matabaran

We do have a government agency that handles R&D for FOSS (well a Linux distribution in particular)- we have ASTI which churned out Bayanihan Linux. As part of the DOST, developed of Bayanihan is allocated a certain part of the National Budget (if not, the Departmental Budget so as not to micromanage) for sure. Bayanihan provides a good platform to improve upon when legislation goes as planned (focusing on the benefits rather than the features, which I think Bayanihan is not really doing much, but I could be wrong).

Adoption would be great, but it should also be sustainable - so not just focusing on deploying it but creating a healthy ecosystem of software development that revolves around free/open source software and proprietary software, so as not to alienate the other crowd.

Hi Jerome,

Yes, I am familiar with Bayanihan Linux—I used it in my office two years ago, and I think the folks at ASTI have done a wonderful job packaging that distro. On the other hand, I think there is more that we can do to encourage FOSS.

Certainly, a lot of planning and preparation need to go into this effort. You can’t simply mandat the use of FOSS without the supporting infrastructure. But we ought to start sooner rather than later. As it is, I feel we’ve already waited too long.

I suppose that some fear that there will be yet other corrupt practices that will emerge from this like getting the people who would be in charge of deployment, etc. etc.

In any case, I do think that we could sure follow the examples of countries like Brazil, etc. Why not?  I don’t think we’d lose much if the government pushes for it.

It’s not even about the Linux distro or app per se, I think. It’s about the choice that we could make as a collective.

Having spoken and worked with people who are involved in getting free software legislation into parts of Latin America, they have convinced me that the first approach which most people think of is not correct.

Most people start with the idea of legislation which states that governments should “prefer” free software over proprietary software.

This implicitly states that proprietary software is a valid option.  It should not be.

Governments should have the freedom to use their software for any purpose, to examine what the software is doing, to modify the software to fit their needs and obligations, and to publish the software so that the public can audit and benefit from it.  Therefor, governments should only use software which gives them the freedoms of free software.  Other software should be classed as not a valid option.  This is the governments duty to the people.

Doing this immediately is not technically practical.  Compromising on the goal is not acceptable, but flexibility can be introduced by the timetable.  The bill could say: “The government shall not use any software which does not come with these four freedom (and then list the freedoms)”.  And the government could agree to a deadline “The transition to free software will be completed within 5 years”.

I would also give emphasis on free/open standards and free/open file formats for starters. After all, even proprietary systems now support a lot of those and makes the 5 year transition Ciara emphasized even easier for users, organizations, whether public and private.

That basically punishes proprietary software for sole reason of being non-free, Ciarán.

Many software companies have to keep trade secrets to keep their competitive edge and deter lawsuits from other companies. They also are bound a huge chain of contracts, non-disclosure agreements, and other legalities such that they cannot release their source code to the general public. Even if they wanted to, they cannot switch their business model to free software within such a short period of time, especially huge corporations such as Microsoft.

By mandating that the government should only use free software, you immediately lock out a lot of proprietary software vendors from doing business deals with the government. Such a law would run counter to the ideals of freedom; we end up discriminating software instead of selecting them based on their usefulness and accessibility.

So yes, I believe it is much better for the government to ‘prefer’ free software, instead of outright requiring free software and banning non-free on all government transactions.

On a similar note, I agree on Jerome’s note about open standards, as that is something everyone (even proprietary software companies) can implement without too many changes on their ways of life.