Time to stand up and be counted on Open Source

By CHRIS BARTON

Do you have a policy on Open Source? With an election looming it's a good question to put to those who come touting for your vote.

Most will have no idea what you're talking about - and as far as I can tell none of the political parties has policy on it.

But Open Source is something a number of Governments - Brazil, Peru, France, Germany to name a few - are incorporating, in various ways, into their IT strategies.

Our own Government knows about Open Source because a group of IT professionals wrote in May urging it to consider a pro-Open Source stance.

That group has now evolved into the New Zealand Open Source Society.

So far the Government has done nothing - probably still scratching its head trying to figure out what the hell this weird tribe of geeks is talking about.

Fair enough. Open Source plays to a mysterious beat - part- socialist, part-capitalist - making it a very difficult tune for political parties to dance to.

It's software of any type, from operating system to wordprocessor, where the source code is open - hence "open source".

Source code is the underlying instruction set of software. Making it "open" means making that code available on a website for others to use and, if they choose, modify for their own purposes. The only catch is once that's done, the modified software must in turn be made open too.

The concept is not as fruit loop as it sounds because it means lots of software developers all over the world are working with software that has essentially the same roots - meaning it's constantly being improved and refined. It also means a growing library of applications for anyone to use.

For free? Well, almost. Software developers making the software work for a particular business get paid for the work they do. But they don't get any ongoing royalties for their creative efforts. Their copyright is left behind - "copyleft" - for others' benefit.

It's a bit like when an architect designs a house and when the house is built others see some of the clever ideas and incorporate some of them into their next design.

"Finished" product (although such a term is an impossibility in software) such as the Linux operating system, the Apache web server and Open Office - a suite including word processor and spreadsheet - are found free on the web. But some versions are sold - such as Red Hat Linux and StarOffice from Sun.

Either way, Open Source software is much cheaper than proprietary software such as that made by Microsoft or Oracle.

Which is why some Governments are mandating Open Source software in Government departments and agencies and others are considering doing so. The rallying cry is "software libre".

No one really knows what our Government spends - mainly with Microsoft - on software licences per year, but it is many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Could vast sums of money be saved if Government departments adopted OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office, for example?

It's a question all political parties ought to be thinking about. At least one Government department, Winz, has entertained the possibility, but so far none has made the switch.

There's also the question of how Open Source might fit with the Government policy of Growing an Innovative New Zealand (Gainz). So far, it doesn't fit at all. The Government's information and communication technology (ICT) task force - one of three sectors targeted for Gainz - doesn't include any Open Source advocates.

But what could a government do? There are many examples to follow, but a starting point might be the formation of an Open Source Foundation - perhaps joint-funded by Government/universities and business.

The mandate would be something for those involved to work out. But a foundation developing Open Source software for use in New Zealand and worldwide could provide benefits - jobs, expertise and shared, cheaper software for all.

On the other hand, such a move might be characterised in much the same way as Microsoft regards Open Source - variously described as "a cancer," "an intellectual property destroyer" and "un-American".

This side of the debate - heard many times in the Microsoft antitrust trial - says software innovation is best left to the free market and the Government should stay out of what it doesn't understand.

Which makes it very much a political issue. Sadly that debate isn't happening here at all. Our political parties - either intentionally or, more likely, by omission - have decided Open Source should be ignored.

* Email Chris Barton

Open Source

Open Letter to Govt regarding Open Source

New Zealand Open Source Society

Copyleft

Linux

Apache

Open Office
Red Hat Linux

StarOffice

Software Libre

Governments push open-source software