Information Society Watch

Introduction
The debate on Free and Open Source software versus proprietary software has often got bogged down in ‘its free’ versus ‘it is not free’ arguments. However there are other critical aspects that need to be considered. The argument for FOSS is looked at from different perspectives in this note.

1. Political perspective
This is possibly the most important argument for FOSS. A purchaser of proprietary software does not have the source code. The implications of this could include-
a. Being dependant on only the vendor for maintenance and support. If the vendor closes shop, it may be difficult to continue to use the application.
b. Being forced by the vendor to upgrade the application even if user does not see the need. For e.g. when a vendor releases a new version of proprietary software, it often stops support for an earlier version, which compels the users of that version to upgrade to the new one. Each upgrade has time and money implications, apart from new ‘bugs’.
c. Software can contain ‘malware’ which will perform functions on behalf of the vendor without the knowledge and approval of the user. Software used in sensitive installations (defence etc.) can be used to provide information about the users and the environment. This may sound far fetched, but one hears cases of telephone companies performing surveillance for their masters. As the world becomes more complex and violent, electronic eavesdropping will become more common and far reaching. Already the US (and other!) Governments are ‘profiling’ people and most of this information is collected through software applications that the person interfaces with.
d. The importance of having the capacity for ‘Appropriation’ of ICT resources as a political right rather than mere ‘access’ to the same is becoming increasingly clearer. This is also discussed later under the “Constructivist process of learning” in the education perspective.

2. Education perspective
There are two arguments for using FOSS over proprietary software from an education perspective.

a. Constructivist process of learning
‘IT learning’ is not so much learning how to ‘use’ applications, but rather how applications can be created, modified / enhanced etc. The scope of such learning is restricted in case of proprietary software, since the source code is not available. On the other hand, in case of FOSS, the student can unravel the actual code, understand, ‘break’ and then make further changes as may be useful, in a process of ‘constructing knowledge’ (software) rather than merely ‘using’ it. Just as learning to become a doctor entails understanding how the human body works, rather than only learning about using medicines or equipment, meaningful ‘IT learning’ would require an Open Source environment. New custom applications can be created by relatively minor modifications in existing applications .

b. Diversity in learning
Any meaningful process of learning must provide diversity of opportunities and contexts. From an 'education' perspective, the question here is, should children be exposed to only one set of software applications and believe Software = Microsoft (like Photocopy = Xerox), or should the 'diversity of learning opportunities' imply that children should have the opportunity to learn different applications, environments and tools, so that they have a broader understanding of IT. Of course MS applications could also be learnt, but learning need not be restricted to only MS applications.

3. Economic perspective
Though this is unfortunately, often the central point in arguments on FOSS, it is more complex than saying FOSS is ‘free’ or ‘cheap’. (As clarified earlier, the free in FOSS is not an economic term, but a political one).

Software vendors talk of TCO (Total Cost of Operations), which includes cost of acquisition + cost of maintenance / upgrade + costs of training (people costs). Availability (or non availability) of people for conducting training or for providing support can be crippling and can make the second and third components expensive for FOSS, even if the first is much lower. This will impact users in both maintaining / fixing defects in the application as well as in getting enhancements and upgrades as required to meet new requirements. In case of proprietary software, the vendor usually provides required support. In the case of FOSS therefore, there is a need to create an ‘eco-system’ of such support.

A second economic aspect; it is established economic knowledge that monopolies need to be strongly discouraged in the interests of customers and the market itself. The interesting feature of the industry is that an application that is used by most people tends to set the standards of using and sharing information and this can overtly put enormous pressure on people to conform to these and buy the same application. Such conscious positioning can itself be considered a ‘rent seeking’ behavior (meaning seeking revenues from the asset of ‘pre-eminence’ and ‘standards setting’ and making efforts to maintain that pre-eminence)

Thirdly, the term ‘multi-national’ or ‘trans-national’ is a misleading one, most of these ‘trans-nationals’ are American companies with global operations. None of these can or will take any action prohibited by the US Government. For e.g. software exports of even ‘Indian’ companies that are subsidiaries of American entities, need to be certified that they are not bound for countries like Libya, Iran, Cuba etc. Also software ‘sales’ provides opportunities for windfall gains (after all, the marginal cost of each license is only the cost of duplication and transport) and these accrue to the US economy. On the other hand, in many cases FOSS applications are locally developed and the revenues relating to maintenance, support and other services add to the local GDP. Thus, for developing countries, FOSS offers opportunities for avoiding intellectual royalty premia payments and developing local skills. Software design and development is significantly higher value adding activity compared to ITES (Call Centre) activities.

4. Social perspective
FOSS has introduced a profound philosophy of working – based on cooperation amongst volunteers instead of competition. FOSS applications are created by several (in some cases, running into thousands) of individuals, all over the world, working together to create information assets, that are made openly available. These groups are ‘virtual communities’.

This concept has caught on to other areas as well. Wikipedia, a collaborative creation has become very popular encyclopaedia and has withstood predictions of its collapse. Music and videos (Youtube) have created new paradigm of creating and ‘consuming’. Such ‘Open Access ’ paradigms now cover scientific and other research areas, providing free ‘community’ access to knowledge. New terms such as ‘community informatics’ and ‘creative commons’ have taken root. Of course, though this is limited to production of ‘intangibles’, it still represents an alternative to ‘capitalism; which we are assured is the only and ‘natural’ way of production and consumption.

5. Conclusion – the Development perspective
For an individual consumer, the market is given, and she chooses from the options available. For the Government, such an ‘easy’ course of action may not really be justifiable . While the argument for FOSS is strong, the real issue lies in 'creating an Open source ecosystem’ that will actually allow for benefits to be realized. While some countries have taken this route, it does require significant effort and investment . When the choice is between purchasing proprietary software from a transnational, and promoting local FOSS, Government has a higher responsibility to put in the initial investment and energy into creating such ‘ecosystem’. Just as, in many cases in this country, initial Government investment and support for a sector has provided the base (social overhead capital) that has then enabled local entrepreneurs in directly productive activities. And that India has the largest pool of people in the IT sector can provide the necessary foundation for such effort.

Within the Government, of course, the IT department could be such a driver, yet the RDPR and development departments such as education and health have a significant interest too in creating such an ‘ecosystem’.