Government’s FOSS Hesitation

The Inquirer reports that the Government is still considering its policy on free/open source software (FOSS).  To be more precise, government is trying to see if they should require all agencies to use free/open source software.  The INQ7 report said:

CICT Commissioner Emmanuel Lallana said that Philippine government should first develop its capability with open source software “before we mandate it.”

Lallana said a government project known as “PC ng Bayan” is currently offering the Bayanihan Linux operating system, an open source package developed by the Advance Science and Technology Institute, to government agencies.

“I personally believe that it’s not a viable alternative for us right now [to mandate open source software use in government]. For now, we will allow each agency to decide on this,” he added.

While I agree with Comm. Lallana’s concern that FOSS adoption may be jeopardized if the industry is unable or unwilling to provide adequate support for FOSS users, I disagree that this should be a barrier to having a government-wide FOSS policy.

First,  it’s a chicken-and-egg situation.  If the government stays neutral about FOSS, then the demand for FOSS will remain low and the private sector won’t have a market to serve.  Hence, Comm. Lallana’s excuse will likely persist until the private sector adopts FOSS in a big way. 

Eventually, this will happen but why should government wait?  If government adopts a FOSS policy now, it immediately creates a huge market for the private sector.  Simple economic forces will push the private sector to provide a slew of services to support the government demand.  “If you build it, they will come.” 

It’s not unprecedented in government.  PGMA herself issued a memo circular in 2004 requiring the government to use 1% blend of coco-diesel in a bid to help the industry.  This was done despite the fact that the present industry can’t supply that amount.  That’s not the point.  The point is that the market will naturally fill the gap by pushing investment towards the supply. This lowers prices hopefully to the point where coco-diesel can be a cost-effective additive to ordinary diesel. 

It goes to show you that if the government is committed to a cause, they will continue to push it.  Look at the President’s recent support for the coco-diesel industry here, here, and here.

Second,  Comm. Lallana seems to labor under the impression that the only policy choice is to mandate the use of FOSS in government.  That’s not true.  Government can adopt a policy merely encouraging FOSS.  So, the government should not consider itself in an either-or situation.  There are a multitude of grays to consider here.

Third, a FOSS policy need not be one directed at FOSS itself but to collateral issues that benefit the government in other ways.  The most important issue of course is the budget deficit.  Did I fail to mention that FOSS is FREE? 

Let me repeat that. 

FREE. 

So, whatever the government is paying for software licenses can theoretically go to zero. (Some people like to say, there’s no BILL.)  With the government turning off airconditioners to save on electricity, it boggles the mind why the top ICT advisers do not advocate doing their share in reducing the deficit. 

The second way a FOSS policy benefits the government is in the area of trade with the US.  The US has taken the position that a country’s respect for intellectual property rights is intrinsically linked to free trade (that is, free access to US markets).  After all, they have lots of valuable IP goods to sell and weak IP regimes in foreign countries threaten their potential revenue in those markets.  They even have a policy embodied in what they call the Special 301 process (learn more about it here and here) where the US Trade Representative issues an annual report classifying countries depending on the level of IP protection prevailing there (see the 2005 report here).  In case you’re curious, the Philippines is in the Priority Watchlist, in part due to the high rate of software piracy here. According to the BSA, 70% of all software in the country is pirated. 

Well, FOSS is not pirated software.  Therefore, if government encourages FOSS use in order to save money, it will also have the effect of reducing the incidence of software piracy.  More importantly, the government can do this pursuant to a higher goal of promoting respect for IP rights.  If the government uses 100% FOSS, then the BSA’s numbers will go down significantly thereby improving our country’s standing vis-a-vis the US Trade Representative.  Heck, it might even bump us down to the Watch List (sans the Priority).

Despite all of these benefits, I simply do not understand how the government can remain reticent about FOSS.  There should be at least a policy or a declaration that FOSS can be beneficial.  Why not a statement asking government agencies to look into the possibility of moving over to FOSS?  Anything is better than the defeaning silence in this space. 

It’s time for government to speak clearly and act decisively.   Let’s help our government do this.  If you believe in this cause, then please join us by writing to the CICT or to your Congressman asking them to pursue a policy on FOSS.