Use of software libre(1) by the government
Frequently asked questions
This document attempts to answer the most frequent questions and criticisms about a policy of exclusive use of software libre at the governmental level.
It arose mainly from the criticisms proposed by the Slashdot Forum and by members of the project Proposicion to a bill in preparation in Argentina.
Many of the arguments appear over and over again in several questions. This is due to the fact that the reasons in favor of implementing policies about the use of software libre by the state are few but extremely strong.
We reccommend that first you read the text of "The Digital Crossroad" and "Reasons why the state should use software libre". They present the basis for this document. This text is intended for people that has read that basis and still have specific doubts or questions about it.
What are the specific benefits to the state of the exclusive use of software libre?
Frequently the monetary savings are put ahead of all other advantages. Depending on the systems that are already installed, their cost and the available replacement tools, these savings can be very important, but they can be reduced in a short term because of the expenses of achieving a migration from one system to another.
Even though, the use of software libre has many other advantages that are immediate and more important, to the point of being crucial to the adoption of these policies by the state:- Technologic independence: Thanks to the use of software libre, the state ceases to have its systems under the control of an external entity (often a foreign company). In this way it breaks the technologic dependence that keeps it chained today and obtains the freedoms that software libre provides.
- Control of information: This is an immediate consequence of the freedoms of software libre. Having the freedom to inspect how the software works and the way in which data is stored, plus having the possibility to modify (or to hire somebody to modify) these aspects, leaves the key to access the information in the hands of the state (instead of private hands).
- Reliability and stability: Software libre, by being public, is subject to the scrutiny of a multitude of people, that can look for problems, find their solutions and share such solutions with others. Because of this and because of the so called "Linus principle" (given enough eyeballs, are bugs are shallow), libre programs enjoy an excellent level of reliability and stability, which is required for the critical applications of the state.
- Security: This is a key point for the State. Much of the information handled by the government can be dangerous in the wrong hands. This is why it is critical that the State can check that there are no backdoors in its software, intentional or accidental, and that it can close them in the case that they are found. Such inspection is only possible in the case of software libre.
What are the problems of implementing these policies?
Obviously a proposal of implementation would diminish the profits of the sellers of proprietary software. It is to be expected that they would exert all available pressure to prevent the use of measures that would allow the migration to software libre.
When confronting this threat we have to keep in mind that the control of information by the state and its citizens' individual freedoms are at stake.
We should note that this kind of policy does not discriminate against specific products or suppliers, but against certain unhealthy practices that include control of the user's information by the supplier. It is essential that the state does not surrender to these pressures. This is what creates the restrictions of this policy, restrictions that have as a goal the establishment of minimal qualifications that warrant the rights of the citizens, the software's quality and the security of the information. Any company that agrees to supply its products without compromising these rights will face no difficulties.
Would the software industry suffer damages?
No, it wouldn't, because these measures wouldn't be implemented through a prohibition to the software industry but through establishing that the "libre" quality be the minimal condition for the use of software by the state. (This is the same thing as the reasonable necessary conditions established by any bidding or contract entered by the state).
In fact, if we consider the local industry when we are talking about the "software industry", we see that it will receive great benefits, because libre licenses give the government the right to hire local professionals to modify and adapt its systems (including those that were not developed locally), and thus it would encourage the local technological industry, the economy and employment. Software libre promotes competition.
These benefits that differentiate software libre from proprietary one originate from the possibility of free inspection and modification by anybody, rather than being restricted to the supplier, who can end up using this restriction to monopolize the tech-support and software services.
Would it be more convenient to select the best software, regardless of whether it is libre or proprietary?
Obviously, it is better for the state if it can choose the best fitting solution to its needs. The key to this issue is on the meaning of "best fitting". The best solution is not necessarily the one most frequently used in the market; in many cases the most successful solution is such because the company that sells it had the best publicity campaign, because it cornered the market by means of a monopoly, because of a good commercial move, etc.
The best fitting one is not necessarily the one which is most technologically advanced. The government needs something different, it needs to be technologically independent, it needs to have control over its own information and to protect the security of its data. These are some of the qualities that only software libre can provide, qualities that the goverment cannot do without (on the other hand, it can do without some non-critical functions, or with a slightly lower performance).
Thus, the best fitting solution, be whatever it will be, must be a libre program, even in cases in which it is slightly less functional (provided that it isn't a critical function) or more expensive. Non-libre programs have features that make them totally inadequate for use by the governent because they subject it to very serious risks, even in the cases where software libre to replace it lacks functionality (as long it is not critical), or has a larger cost.
Wouldn't a migration be more costly if there was already something in operation?
Yes, it would be. A migration implies costs of surveys, decission making in order to implement the new systems, labor to achieve the change, data conversion, retraining of personnel, time, and, eventually, payment of fees and/or development (not all "libre" software has zero cost).
All these are fixed expenses that are payed only once. The proprietary software in operation nowadays also had fixed expenses that were already incurred in and that will never be recovered. But in addition to them there are other expenses brought in by the proprietary software: constant updates (sometimes augmented as an effect of a selfsupporting monopoly), loss of interoperability, expensive maintenance (with a contractor having monopoly over the maintenance, and thus charging whatever he wants), and most of all the huge cost for the state of losing the freedom to control its own information.
These costs are permanent and keep growing through time, (even if we only consider the monetary ones), and sooner or later, they will be larger than the fixed expenses of migrating to software libre. Therefore, given that a migration will be economically beneficial in the long run, it would be wise to perform it as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the costs to keep growing until they get out of control.
This is a short term expense with a long term saving, and other major benefits.
Isn't having the information in public format enough?
If what we want is to have free access to the data that we exchange with the government (forms, reports, official bulletins), yes, it is enough. The use of open formats agrees with the principle that dictates that the state must make its information public to warrant transparency.
Open formats would help in this respect, but the problems of control of information, national security and technological independence still remain. These qualities are at risk when using proprietary software, even if it operates on open formats.
Where would the government find technical support and maintenance?
Basically, in the same place where it finds it now. The technicians hired by the government, once retrained could go on performing their tasks. Software libre also counts with corporative support, just like proprietary one. Some companies, like IBM, provide support to libre and proprietary software, and others, like Red Hat, give support mainly to software libre.
In contrast with using proprietary software, now it would be possible to choose freely whom to hire for support, based on their qualifications and prices. This would be a way to avoid the extortion that could be exercised by the company that owns the proprietary software and takes advantage of this fact to exert a monoply over the support and maintenance of its products.
Among the choices available, in the case of software libre, we must include also the possibility of hiring local experts and companies, thus promoting the development of the local economy. Another available resource are the agreements with universities that are the suppliers of qualified personnel and that, through agreements can contribute in offering solutions and developing systems.
Wouldn't the cost be extremely high given the huge amount of code developed in-house by the state?
It is true that much code (especially administrative one) is developed internally and that the difficulties in replacing them are very complicated. There is no libre replacement for them because they are very specific, and they are very expensive to redevelop.
But, given that the internally developed code is state property, the state can negogiate a relicensing to declare it software libre. Thus this code would be turned into libre programs without technical effort, without having to update the systems or to go back to retraining personnel.
Isn't it necessary to hide the code in some areas?
Doesn't the public knowledge of the code facilitate the unlawful access to computer criminals?
Security software (which is the one we refer to in this question) is like a lock in a safe: even knowing how it works you still need the "key" or "combination" selected by its owner to open it. The security depends on the protection of that combination, not on the mechanism itself, provided that the mechanism is good enough.
There are libre programs for use with the strongest safety mechanisms known. Their libre quality gives them a guarantee of quality since their public knowledge enables anybody to detect and fix any defects or dangers to their security contained in them.
When their operation is hidden, only those with intentions to break their security take the trouble to disassemble them to see how they work, thus increasing the risks. In summary: it is possible to have libre programs with maximal security and it is easier to control their operation and to audit them.
In extreme cases, like national security or intelligence systems, it could be useful to hide the code. Even in that cases, acquiring proprietary software is not an option, because a private entity would have access to that national security secret. The only possible solution in those cases is to use internally developed software.Isn't forcing a policy of use of software libre equivalent to forcing the use of a specific product?
Software libre isn't equivalent to a specific brand, because all that is required in order to be libre is to give the user the pertinent faculties. Any company, national or foreign, can meet this requirement. This is not the same as saying: "we demand brand X", which is a requirement that only company X can meet. Moreover, this is not an imposition on the freedom of choice of the citizens, because a policy of use of software libre is a decision made by the state and for the state, that is, for the administration of its internal systems. This is what any government should do: to organize itself internally in the best possible way to protect the rights of its citizens and its own security.
Is it enough to apply this policy only to new systems?
No, the policy should be complete and should cover all systems, old ones as well as new ones, because the previous systems would continue causing damages in the ways mentioned above, that is, exposing the National Security to risks, creating a technologic dependence and preventing the state from controlling its own information.
Would software libre be detrimental to its authors by removing the stimulus for further development?
To answer this question, first we have to point that software differs from other intelectual creations (such as books or works of art) in several respects; actually software is more similar to scientific knowledge, and development of software is like scientific research. In the scientific world the freedom to use previous knowledge and the free circulation of knowledge are important values that are valued and that create progress. When Sir Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants" he was appreciating the freedoms given by the "giants", that allowed him to carry on his research. Likewise, in the world of software libre the work of "giants" is available, as an initial capital upon which to develop and perform true innovations, instead of reinventing the wheel again and again. Just like scientists, the developers of software libre find a stimulus on the prestige of the intellectual creation obtained through their work's publication. Hence the freedom of inspection and use provide the framework to promote the development and innovation of software and freedom of distribution promotes a stimulus.
In addition to the personal stimulus there is also an economic one. Software, as a tool, requires maintenance (deployment, adaptation, modifications during its use, error fixing). To perform an adequate maintenance it is necessary to know how the software functions. When the software isn't libre that knowledge is the exclusive property of its author, who therefore, has a monopoly over the related services. The freedoms given by software libre allow the rupture of this monopoly fomenting free competition, that is to say, a market where these services can be dispensed by any qualified person, and where the price is dictated by real necessities and not by a monopoly. In this way, the freedoms in the software create a stimulus of direct economic value and it also create employment that can be transferred to the local industry even if the software was created abroad. The freedom of distribution is not detrimental to this economic stimulus because the software is developed as an abstract object with high intellectual value; the creation of copies has an insignificant value, which is not what is payed for when hiring the development of software.
What are the risks of proprietary software?
Thanks to the restrictions upon freedoms imposed by proprietary software, the entities that develop this type of software can (and do) a number of things:
hide source code to keep developers divided, disenfranchised and dependent; tie inferior products to dominant ones; defiantly violate and avoid court orders; quash promising competitive start-ups; leverage dominant products into other, unrelated businesses; carve up markets to eliminate real competition; utilize predatory pricing practices to foreclose competition; commoditize and objectify their customers by making them captive; cause developers to constantly re-invent the wheel by hiding the source code; exercise general thuggish behavior in business dealings; compel weak competitors to destroy their own innovative products to protect established profitable ones; fail to respond to customer requests and needs in a timely fashion; exploit natural "choke-holds" in the economy for their own advantages; manipulate and delay technological progress to maintain supremacy; hide coding bugs thereby jeopardizing stability and security; de-humanize software developers by considering them as "inputs" or "assets"; stifle innovation; "embrace and extend" or otherwise pollute open standards in order to break and appropriate them; use exclusionary contract provisions to enforce censorship over disclosure of bugs and defects; shut-off or block channels of distribution to legitimate competitors; announce vaporware to foreclose adoption of real competitive products; frustrate, taunt and antagonize governmental officials protecting the public interest; truncate choices; create confusion and frustration in users by selling inferior code; take the innovations developed by others as their own; practice differential pricing to punish those that oppose them; misinform and exploit users; use undocumented features as an anti-competitive device; suppress the open, efficient and free nature of the scientific method by keeping the code secret; purposefully break the code of competitors so that there are code inoperabilities across products; prohibit friends from sharing software with friends; coerce their users to fore-go promising competitive technologies; use overly restrictive and exclusionary contracts against weaker competitors; and perform other anti-social, anti-competitive and improper acts to establish, maintain and extend their software monopolies.
All these are the reasons why the government cannot use proprietary software, putting their citizens or the public information at risk when they are subjected to these practices.
And especially what is at risk is the technologic independence, control of information and national security.
Notes
1. This document will use the word "libre" instead of "free" to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free". The english word "free" means both "zero cost" and "with freedom". The word "libre" refers to freedom, not to cost.
Daniel F Moisset, Federico Heinz - Jan 26, 2004 - version 0.4
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Daniel Moisset
Copyright © 2001 Federico Heinz
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
GNU Free Documentation License: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
| Hosted by GrULiC |
|
Last modified: 06/15/04 |