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.
