Politicizing open source is bad politics
This longish blog is about the feeling that promoting open source software (FLOSS) benefits the public good and dilutes undue corporate influence in our lives. The idea is expressed in Vision Green which states “we believe that Canada's competitiveness in global information technology (IT) will be greatly enhanced by strongly supporting FLOSS”.
I’ve worked in IT for 25 years. I’ve dealt with clients ranging from small 50+ employee businesses to the world’s largest corporations. I’m a big fan and user of popular open source offerings such as Linux, MySQL, PHP and Firefox. I have lots of reasons to hate Microsoft. But, I think it’s a mistake to turn open source into a political issue.
When we support open source
The premise of the argument that open source can help convert software into a public good rather than a private good is flawed. That premise could be used to make arguments for nationalizing energy, telecommunications and any other industry so as to make them public goods also.
Saying we “strongly support” open source implies that we “do not support” its counterpart, proprietary software. That’s a creaky plank in a political platform that I wouldn’t want to explain to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in the IT sector.
Neither would I want to explain it to the millions of people who use Facebook, YouTube, Google, iPods, Amazon, EBay or Canada’s own BlackBerry. No open source here; this cool stuff runs on jealously guarded proprietary code.
We are already free to choose
Individuals and businesses are already free to pay for licensed software, develop their own or use free open source. There are no barriers for government to remove. The prices are already right. Sometimes organizations and individuals choose open source because it saves money. More often proprietary software is more economical.
It’s not the role of a political party to presume to know what’s best for IT buyers. Open source is not broken. It’s a wonderful creature that came into existence on its own merits and will continue to thrive without government intervention. Where did we get the impression that the open source community is welcoming politics into their world?
Where does open source fit?
Why doesn’t everyone just use free open source instead of costly proprietary software?
One reason is that 95% of software requirements have no corresponding open source solutions. This won’t change in our lifetimes even if governments around the world made it a priority. Linux comes closest to being a potentially broadly used open source alternative but it’s only an operating system and has little value by itself.
The vast bulk of code out there is either wholly proprietary to an organization or for sale on the marketplace as licensed software. Those who contribute to open source have bills to pay. So, in a kind of symbiotic relationship with expertise flowing both ways, they most likely have kept their day jobs as proprietary software developers.
A second reason is that software licensing costs are a very small percentage of IT costs. The bulk of the costs in custom application development are spent on design, implementation and, mostly, maintenance. Software license costs are trumped by such things as reliability, maintainability, scalability and availability of support.
A third reason is that you can’t hold anyone accountable for things that go wrong with open source. That’s the reason why companies like Red Hat are in business. They “resell” open source Linux. They charge you for support services and the versioning, quality control and standardization work that they provide. Vision Green hints at promoting this kind of model. The irony is that in this way Red Hat has come to look a lot more like a traditional licensed software vendor and a lot less like open source.
None of that is relevant to me as I sit in my basement programming my campaign web site but it’s crucial to the overwhelming majority of the IT sector, the organizations that invest billions of dollars in IT.
Why the fuss?
We need a platform that can hold up to the increased scrutiny that will be brought on by our increasing standing in the polls. Instead of focusing on what is strongest in our platform our critics will magnify what is weakest. Politics is still a blood sport.
Let’s not make a political issue out of open source. At best it may come off looking well intended, misguided or uninformed. At worst it will mean our detractors will tar our substantive policies on energy and poverty with the same brush. It’s not worth the risk.
- Ard Van Leeuwen's blog
- Login to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Search
Email Updates:
Comments
Real push for FLOSS?
That's an excellent post, Ard, and points out what others (more familiar with IT issues) have told me before, and what I also suspect to be true, having myself once trodden down the path of the software designer/analyst.
I think perhaps part of the Green push for FLOSS has to do with democratic access and transparency. The worry is that, if government does its work using proprietary software, then the public may be forced to buy it if they wish to fully interact with government. This could give an unfair advantage to the wealthy or their lobbyists.
To this worry, I would suggest that we instead push to ensure that any and all government applications used to create documentation or databases that should allow public access make available free software to access that information as appropriate. A model for this is PDF - many government documents are released in PDF format created by the proprietary Adobe software. However, anyone can download a free reader to access these documents. NetFile also allows free access without requiring software purchase, although you generally have to pay a third party to prepare your electronic return. Even in this case, those with suffiently low income can get free filing - for the rest, the modest cost is a reasonable price to pay for convenience. And since only the NetFile format is government-set, not the software to generate it, you are welcome to seek (or create) an open-source tax filing program.
On this specific topic, I have seen it proposed that government create & provide free tax filing software. However, I see a potential conflict of interest. It is to the advantage of a tax filer to maximize deductions and minimize tax payable - whichever service does this best will attract more clients. The government prefers to maximize tax income, so they may not be the best to suggest ways you can save - one doubts they would do all they could do to help you reduce your tax. I trust an independent provider over the government to do the best job for me on this.
In another area, Elections Canada has their own filing software which they provide free of cost to candidates and parties. Given the Conservative Party's penchant for "bending" or "stretching" the rules, would we really want that software to be open source and available for anyone who wants to "improve" on it? Myself, I'm happy that the Conservatives must use the software exactly as EC provides it without any special insight into the underlying code.
In any case where software is required (or recommended) for a person to have input into the democratic process, that software should be provided free-of-charge to users. Whether this software is sourced openly or proprietarily won't really matter, rather the status of the ultimate licensing/usage rights. In general, intellectual property is an area of the economy which can grow without increasing our ecological footprint, so we shouldn't be seen as taking steps to hinder its growth unnecessarily. Politicizing FLOSS does seem risky in this way.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), the views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Software as a core economic and governance issue.
I was not part of the decision making process that lead to the policy statements, so I can't comment on why this policy is there. I can offer my own thoughts as to why I believe it should be.
Software is not simply a product or "tool" that does a job. It may be a tool, but it is more than that. Software is a series of rules which a computer obeys, and as such can be compared to other types of policy which are rules which humans obey. The best way to understand the impact of software on society is to think less in a natural sciences way, and do more thinking in a social sciences way.
We could start with economics, but I believe that people generally understand the economic benefits of FLOSS to society. A growing number of accountants are recognizing that we have been accounting for software in the wrong way in the past. It is not a product which is then an asset, but something which is simply an expense of doing business. The more we can reduce this expense, the greater the benefits to the economy as a whole. Metering the royalty revenues generated by software vendors as a good thing would be like metering the tax revenue extracted by the government as a good thing, and presuming that increasing taxes is always a net benefit to the economy.
The best book for understanding the economics behind FLOSS is The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom by Yochai Benkler. Understanding this method of production should be seen as being as important for the new economy as understanding the basis of industrial production was for the past economy. I would suggest that the promotion of the production method behind Open Source should be seen as being as critical an economic policy as the promotion of the Green Tax Shift.
As excited as I am about the economic implications, I am far more concerned by the political science implications.
I have presented over the years on the topic of Code is law (Including a SpeedGeek). Once you think this way you will start to think about governance issues such as whose computer is obeying whose rules, and whether the owner of the computer should receive the same level of transparency and accountability of the software author as we as citizens expect of our human governments.
This brings us right into your examples of Facebook, YouTube, Google, iPods, Amazon, EBay or Canada’s own BlackBerry. This is a mixture of what is commonly called "proprietary" software where the author of the software keeps the rules secret to themselves and does not disclose them to the owner of the computer, and private software where the owner has authored their own rules. These are entirely different situations.
Facebook, Youtube, Google, Amazon and EBay are all environments where there is a combination of software authored by the owner of the computer (and thus they can trust themselves) and accountable/transparent Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS). Google are themselves a large promoter and contributor to Open Source projects, both code which they use themselves and the marketplace itself (such as through Google's Summer of Code). Those running these companies often acknowledge that their businesses could not have existed without being able to built on top of accountable/transparent Open Source where they weren't forced to either accept the unknown rules of and possible manipulations by a third party or author all their software in-house.
Devices such as iPods and BlackBerry's bring up important governance issues, some of which are a huge problem in the mobile computing marketplace in general. We need to critically ask questions about what will happen as we move more and more from desktops and laptops where the owner of the hardware has more of a say in what software they use to locked mobile devices where the manufacturer (and sometimes mobile carriers) seek to impose rules/software on people.
Suggesting that the party supports Open Source does not suggest that the party thinks that non-open source is somehow evil. The party promotes electoral reform to improve the way we elect representatives to our parliaments, but does not suggest that any government elected under the First Past the Post system is corrupt.
That said, we should be mindful of reforms which might direct us towards a feudal or otherwise dictatorial system. This suggests we should be aware of the implications of having large percentages of our population using communications devices which are under the control of a small number of unaccountable/non-transparent software vendors.
P.S. I try to practise what I promote, and have only a handful of non-FLOSS software on any of my computers (Adobe Flash, Skype), and do not own devices locked into or otherwise use software authored by Apple, RIM or Microsoft. I am a software author and the software I use is either custom written for a specific customer (where they then have full rights to the source code) or if intended to be publicly distributed it is FLOSS. I do not (and will not) author software intended to be publicly distributed where that software is not fully transparent and accountable to the owners of the computers running the software.
---
Russell McOrmond (Constituent, Ottawa South)
Check out my BLOG on Digital Copyright Canada.
Internet Policy
Withouth politicizing one aspect of internet policy, that of open source - having a more comprehensive internet policy for the GPC would be good politics. I had discussed with some folks at Yale who are part of a group that is trying to get U.S parties to have internet policies (and good ones!). My own top issue is that of open access policy by Canada's research granting agencies - CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC, and I have written a policy brief supporting a similar legislation in Canada as proposed in the E.U. The E.U. published a
study on the technical evolution of scientific markets whose first recommendation is 'gauranteed free access to publicly-funded research on the internet within six months of publication'. It is supported by a petition signed by around 30000 scientists worldwide. The United States has a Senate bill yet to be passed called Taxpayer Access Act with the same recommendation. This is a nice issue because it serves the national and global public interest while being good as a taxpayer issue. Canada's CIHR has moved forward with a policy, but it is felt that Canada is dragging it's heels on open access in general.
Aside from open access, I might be inclined to agree that singling out FLOSS as if the party is a sponsor of open source over proprietary models may be the wrong approach. But Internet Governance issues including the opportunities provided for public savings and the public interest by open source are important, and the Green Party is recognized by many as being the only one having any sort of policy on these issues. I think situating open source in a broader internet policy is the way to go, including supporting open access (I don't see any issue of politicization here since this is already a legislative proposal in EU and US.)
The top issues may be
1. Access to the internet itself - the internet has become necessary to full participation in Canadian life for the vast majority of people. Northern, remote and rural areas suffer from lack of access at all or poor access.
2. Open Access to publicly funded research, creating a more fluid and cost-effective research communication world.
3. Reducing ancilliary costs in education through open courseware and ICT4E. Stop paying $1000 a year for textbooks - students will like better initiatives on this!
4. Internet Governance in national and international policy. Canada has often been a laggard on the international stage on this issues as well. Canadian arliament ihas not been knowledgeable about the issues. All parties signed the 1999 WIPO internet treaties, which is generally seen as a mistake by proponents of a fairer, freer internet.
A mountain of literature, reports and discourse on ICT4D now exists, with a variety of recommendations for ICT’s for education (ICT4E) in general, and universities in particular, applications to social and health development, equity concerns, gender equity concerns, democratic potentials and limitations, e-governance opportunities and cautions, cultural attitudes towards internet and computer use, analyses of networks and on-line communities, the notion of a global civil society made possible by ICT’s, on-line activism, cyber-exclusion, privacy issues, digital rights management (DRM), innovation in business and technology, electronic finance, e-commerce issues, information management issues, piracy, user rights, communication rights, digital culture, copyright and intellectual property, terrorism and security and many more. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) are global advocacy organizations for the rights of users, but many debates over these issues also occur at the World Intellectual Property Organization, particularly at WIPO’s Development Agenda, at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organization of Economic Cooperation for Development (OECD) and more, and there is the UN ICT Taks Force.
Internet policy is interesting because it is demonstrating a new need for what David Held calls 'intermestic' policy in globalization. The stakeholders in many issues (agriculture, labour, science) have common issues along a continuum globally - the issue that was traditionally domestic is so heavily influenced by international pressures and norms. Too often the hegemony of power casts public interests of nations in competition with one another in order for global corporations to capture power over national governments (such as when big pharma threatens to invest in someone else's country if don't give them what they want, or whe the Schwarzenegger comes over and expedites our legislation on copyright). So much of our policy is not democratic as a result, since we can't vote internationally. The internet itself provides an opportunity for intermestic policy issues to be communicated, and the internet policy is an intermestic policy. The Global Greens have it right, naturally moving towards intermestic opportunties for democratic participation, because the environment knows no borders. GIS combined with open access/open source provides incredible opportunties for local-global cooperation from grassroots to the treetops for global evidence-based environmentalism. Of course IG policy can either facilitate our ability to communicate for the global public interest in a way that is equitable, or it can stand in the way serving vested interests.
Toward an Internet Policy? are you with me?
The group at Yale has identified key policy areas of internet policy - I think we should discuss with them, as in the EU and the US as well as in global civil society there are some common themes emerging that approach consensus from civil society and grassroots, that have policy implications for domestic and international internet policy. Greens should be a leader Canada should be a leader.
Unfortunately, the other parties are kind of still in the dark ages when it comes to this stuff. It's up to us to lead the way!
Internet policy
Toward in Internet Policy? Yes, I am with you.
FLOSS is already free so we don't need to promote or defend it. But access and rights to tax payer funded research does need to be defended and open course ware needs to be promoted.
Perhaps many greens are already sensitive to the complex, real issues you've brought up and FLOSS has somehow come to (mistakenly) represent those issues.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Excellent project
I believe creating a comprehensive Internet, software and electronic communications policy is wise and forward-looking. Whatever we have to say about FLOSS should be in the context of that policy, and we should certainly allow for diversity, including the value of proprietary software for those who prefer to use it and those who create it.
Promoting universal Internet access is a laudable goal. There are some in the Green Party who still lament the loss of our quarterly (?) printed newsletter and argue against e-voting or other electronic communications on the grounds that it excludes any who are not 'on-line'. The answer is not to be luddites, but to improve access for all lest we create yet another two-tier ranking of society.
Free access to publicly-funded research is also a laudable goal. Quite regularly I look for information on some topic related to policy and find only the abstract available - the full report requiring me to pay a fee or subscription to access. Since I'm neither a professional researcher, journalist, nor member of an organization with access (like a university library) I am unable to access these for free and can't afford to pay for them all. Any time public money has paid for all (or some) of this research the results should certainly be open to public access - by Internet, not by travelling to the lab in question to look at their reports. Rather than force the journals that incur the expenses of peer review and publishing to give their product free, perhaps the government could buy bulk memberships on behalf of the public to compensate the journals failry but give us access, or at least those of us who wish to.
I believe that our policies on intellectual property (copyright, public domain) should also fall within these policy block, or a closely-related one.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), the views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca