CAGW Press Release Misunderstands Open Source
This press release from the Consumer’s Against Government Waste lambasts the state of Mass. for adopting open source software. Here’s the letter I wrote them trying to steer them away from their misunderstandings:
Hi,
Your press release at: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b
seems to exhibit a couple of misunderstandings that, if corrected, would likely lead to a change in the position of the CAGW.
The CAGW says in another current press release that “Competition leads to improved production and higher customer satisfaction.” I could not agree more. Competition is a good thing. That’s also why Massachusett’s proposed move to open source software will also be a good thing, because it will increase competition. A simple example can illustrate:
If Massachusetts uses a proprietary vendor, like say PeopleSoft, for its numerous human resources software needs, then when they need upgrades, changes, improvements, services, technical support, etc for that software then there is a single vendor they can turn to for those services, namely PeopleSoft. The proprietary vendor of a closed-source program has a monopoly on the servicing of that software, which you rightly recognize as a major component cost of software used by the state.
On the contrary, if an open-source program were used instead to meet those same state needs, then when the state needs upgrades, changes, improvements, services, technical support, etc for that software then there are an unlimited number of potential vendors from which the state might choose. The reason for this is obvious: with an open source program any competent IT vendor can familiarize themselves with the source code and offer services for that software. Indeed, widespread government use of open source software would almost certainly spur the formation of new businesses whose sole aim would be to service such software. This situation is impossible with proprietary software because a single vendor holds monopoly control over its source code.
Also, nothing about the adoption of open source software excludes traditionally proprietary companies from joining the competition. Open source software creates a level playing field where even Microsoft themselves could decide to support such software with service contracts. Indeed, traditionally proprietary vendors could also still sell their software if they simple opened the source for inspection. And as you point out, the “Free” in “Free Software” does not necessarily refer to the price. Traditionally proprietary vendors can still make profits on selling open sourced software if they choose to. There are numerous NASDAQ-listed companies whose whole business model is selling open-sourced software for a price.
I agree that “the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing” but your release fails to recognize that choosing a proprietary program puts a monopolist in a position of total control, whereas choosing an open-sourced program places all software service vendors on the equal footing we both would like to see.
I could elaborate more, but I trust you are fully capable of reflecting on these issues yourself and I believe if you look at all the information carefully you will see that the way towards greater competition on an equal footing is through open source.
Brian W. Carver
Oakland, CA
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.