Preferences, not mandates, for open source

Open source can save governments and enterprises tremendous amounts of money--but not always. Lower cost is not always the primary driver for IT deceptions. That's why policies of preference for open source, not mandates, make sense.

Open-source mandates have always seemed like a terrible idea to me, just as mandates to use proprietary software are. When a problem demands the turn of a screw, you don't want to be clobbering it with a hammer.

The Dutch police force understands this, which is why it has explicitly decided to prefer open source in IT purchasing, but to not use open source exclusively.

This is a sound, pragmatic approach to information technology, one that an increasing array of organizations are embracing.

Even so, sometimes our open-source aspirations fall short of reality. For example, the Symbian Foundation, the organization behind the open-source Symbian project, says it favors "open source wherever possible," yet it lists few open-source projects actually powering its IT infrastructure.

Perhaps its desire for software as a service trumped its interest in open-source software?

It's very possible. As stated above, cost, which generally favors open source, is not always the compelling differentiator.

Sometimes, however, cost weighs so heavily in open source's favor that a refusal to use open source demands an answer.

As reported on Slashdot, for example, the auditor-general of Canada's Ontario province issued a report indicating that the government wasted about a billion dollars on an electronic system for medical records when a credible open-source alternative existed, one that was already in use within the province.

A policy of preference for open-source software might well have averted such apparent waste of taxpayer dollars.

Preferences retain flexibility to fit the right tool for the job, while still encouraging open-source adoption. Mandates, like any form of coercion, tend to breed rebellion.

Just ask government IT employees throughout Latin America. During my last trip to Argentina and Brazil, I spoke with system integrators who specialize in open-source software. I asked them if their work with government organizations had become easier since those governments had passed legislation favoring open source.

Nope. In fact, the opposite seems to have occurred, as employees have dug in their heels to avoid being forced to deploy software that may be a mismatch for either their skills or the IT problems at hand. One comment I heard: "It's one thing to legislate and quite another to enforce."

Open source doesn't need mandates to succeed. It's growing explosively, and adoption is widespread. Preferences can help that, but mandates arguably won't.

[fazalmajid]

Few governments will ever mandate open-source software, and if so, only from an ideological point of view or due to cronyism, such as when China mandated the Red Flag Linux distro (Red Flag's CEO was an apparatchik with deep connections to the top of China's leadership).

Most governments will stipulate that standard least-bidder procurement laws apply to software as anywhere else, and in most cases open-source software will win on that basis, as long as it meets requirements.

That's where the rub lies. Software vendors have been adept at rigging the playing field by writing RFPs to favor them over competitors, well before open-source software became a viable contender for enterprise applications. The battle is simply going to shift to features in requirements, when unnecessary bells and whistles are added to RFPs to disqualify open-source projects that otherwise meet the real needs of the customer. In the real world, where proprietary software vendors have deep marketing budgets to buy lunches or otherwise ingratiate themselves with civil servants who are spending the taxpayer's money, abuses can and will occur.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to have an organism like the GAO that can audit requirements, and have an audit automatically triggered whenever a non open-source product is selected. Such a measure would have far more teeth than a simple preference, which is all too easy to work around. There are many precedents for such a policy, the US Navy and many other arms of the Federal government have a procurement policy that requires an exception process whenever a purchase request is made for non-standard (read, non-Wintel) computer equipment.

[GaryOConnor]

Once again the typical linux cry goes up about level playing fields.

You guys invited yourselves into this commercial game and now you want to change the rules because you can't compete. Learn the rules and stay and play if you want to but, if you're struggling to play by the rules, learn how to or suffer the consequences.

The things you describe as abuses are, and always have been, the way this game is played. If someone is getting an edge by buying a lunch then you need to find the money to buy a bigger lunch. I'm not defending their methods but this is how the game has always been played and those in the commercial world are not going to drop any maneuver they see as giving them an edge just because you guys see yourselves as squeaky clean, honest and either devoid of the cash to play along or so choked up with the morality of it all that you just can't bring yourselves to get involved.

The truth is, the playing field is level, you just need to find the necessary cash and the resolve to use it. In the real world, it's dog eat dog and your apparent inability to deal with that makes you seem like a delectable morsel for your opposition.

[fazalmajid]

Things are different when taxpayers' money is concerned. The word "abuse" is actually an understatement. The proper word in most cases is "corruption".

The proposed regulations only cover government procurement laws, which are also subject to international treaties like GATT, e.g. the US can't simply disqualify Airbus from competing for the USAF tanker contract because they are not American - if it did, it would land in the WTO and the EU would be allowed to implement sanctions.

As for not changing the rules because "that's how the game is played", it can be done and has, in other contexts, e.g. the common practice of paying kickbacks or bribes to foreign governments to win contracts. The US and UN have agreed to ban the practice (in the US, through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act). The US has investigated companies both domestic (Lucent in China) and foreign (BAE in Saudi Arabia), and successfully prosecuted many. If you've worked recently for any multinational corporation, you will know how seriously their legal departments take this. I am required to sign a statement each year that I have read and understood the law, and there are elaborate procedures to report violations.

I do not work for an open-source vendor nor do I use Linux myself. I do tend to favor open-source projects as the money my company spends on funding Larry Ellison's yachts is money that won't go into my yearly bonus.