Appeal of Neutral Software Approach. A rebuttal.

In the New Straits Times on the 25th of September, there was an article entitled 'Appeal of neutral software approach' written by Rozana Sani.

In it, it was reported that Yasmin Mahmood, the new Managing Director of Microsoft Malaysia has some comments regarding MAMPU's initiative for the Goverment of Malaysia to encourage the use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the Malaysian Public Sector by having a preference for FOSS solutions.

The Stifler

Her first claim to this policy is that it "could stifle innovation and dampen the country's transformation into a knowledge-based economy"

The key word here is 'could'. After all, anything 'could' happen. How exactly having a policy to promote FOSS in Government agencies would stifle innovation, is not elaborated and backed up with facts in the article. This is a classic example of the seeding of 'Fear'.

On a side note, the article conveniently did not mention the fact that Microsoft's Internet Explorer (MSIE) did not innovate for over 5 years after the demise of its closest rival Netscape. Ironically its revival in innovation only occured when an emerging competitor, Firefox, which just happens to be a FOSS project, started claiming back market share.

How exactly this policy will 'dampen the transformation to a k-economy' is also not specified. Neither is there elaboration on the meaning of this 'dampening'. What is exactly being suppressed, and what exactly is this k-economy? Is it that the dampening will only affect the 'local software economy' specifically based on Microsoft Technologies?

Preferencial Policies

"My opinion is that it [the policy] limits choice as the country has a software procurement preference policy"

The choice may be limited, but for a good reason, as outlined in the objectives of the policy. Proprietary software is still available as an option, it's just that now it has to be justified with the added benefits over FOSS solutions.

In fact, us tax payers find that this policy does not go far enough. Our close neighbour, the Philippines is considering an even more proactive approach:

"...the bill allows the use of proprietary software in government only when no open source alternatives are readily available, or when a proprietary system is already widely in use.

The bill also prohibits any government agency from procuring technology goods and services that are locked in to or dependent on a single vendor."

Other Governments are following suit, for example, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, India, Germany and Spain to name a few.

Just for nerds, not for serious biz

"This is different from merely promoting the use of OSS, which does have its place in the ecosystem such as in academic institutions for research, for example..."

This is interesting in that she is downplaying the significance of FOSS, relegating it to just toys torn apart to be studied in labs, with little relevance to 'The Real World' of business. i.e. FOSS does not have significant business value.

Perhaps a quick look at all the high tech companies who are backing FOSS projects would suggest that FOSS does provide a good business case for adoption. From Google and Amazon, with their large server farms running Linux, IBM who uses FOSS projects to sell their services and hardware, to the millions of companies who run e-commerce sites on Apache, commanding a 60% market share.

FOSS has significant business value, and Governments too are realising this. Governments would be fools not to take advantage of this technology.

The attempt to link FOSS projects as lab playthings also insinuates that FOSS projects are lacking in quality, stability, security and support. Commercial endevours based on FOSS developments like MySQL, RedHat, SuSe, SugarCRM, OpenOffice amongst others show that FOSS projects meet if not exceed the standards set by proprietary solutions.

But yes, FOSS has a great place in academia. Not just because of the price (zero cost) and liberal licensing, but because students have all the source code and face no restrictions in exploring and extending. Unlike proprietary 'Academic Licenses' which force researchers to sign their rights away to a third party as specified by a viral End User License Agreement (EULA).

User Friendly License

"Yasmin believes a more neutral software procurement policy is more appropriate because a technology-neutral approach within the framework of a healthy intellectual property system can act as a strong stimulus for more healthy competition among players"

This quote was highlighted in the article next to Yasmin's picture, so it must be important. However to me it is a mish-mash of three points which is at best, wrong, or at worst a deliberate attempt to confuse the reader. Here is why I think this is wrong.

"Technology-Neutral software procurement is good". The issue here is not about the technology. It's about Licensing.

FOSS projects are usually created because of a need to implement a freer version of an already existing proprietary product. FOSS always has a more user friendly licensing, in that us users would have the full rights to use, modify and redistribute this newly created product. This provides a great platform for innovation in ways the original developers would never conceive of.

A good example would be the Mono project. Microsoft's .NET 'Technology' was ratified in ECMA as an open standard, free for anyone to implement. Some hackers got together and found value in this technology but did not like the existing but restrictive implementation of Microsoft's .NET (in the Visual Studio range of products.) Using the open standard, they recreated the 'Technology' under a freer 'License' in the GPL/X11. They called it Mono, and now it can run .NET applications under Windows, Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD and Sun Solaris.

This is significantly more 'choice' than just Wintel, which is currently the only platform Microsoft can offer to the end user.

So if we were to rephrase the statement to "A more neutral software license procurement policy is more appropriate", it's just obvious that a software vendor would say something like that and not us users or even a Government.

It is only obvious we demand "A more User Friendly software licence procurement policy is more appropriate," which is what the MAMPU plan intends.

Arrr, ye maties!

"... within the framework of a healthy intellectual property system ..." is a statement which seems out of place. Unless of course it was purposely inserted to insinuate that any other approach does not respect Intellectual Property Laws.

All the FOSS Licenses depend on established International Copyright Laws. If the users of FOSS software do not comply with the requirements of the Licenses, their right to use the software is automatically revoked. So implying that FOSS is unhealthy to IP Laws is misleading.

Lower prices dampen competition!

"... [neutral policy] can act as a strong stimulus for more healthy competition among players." Looking at the current world developments, FOSS adoption by users have provided a strong stimulus for more competition amongst players.

This healthy competition has brought benefits to the end users who now enjoy better features, innovations, services and at more competitive prices. It now forces incumbents to prove and justify their worth. So the inclusion of this policy would have certainly driven negotiations to the advantage of the Malaysian Government, and that would hopefully mean better savings in our Tax Dollars.

Sorry ... I wasn't here... can we discuss that again?

"She hopes to engage in discussions with the relevant authorities to understand the thinking behind the current software procurement policy and come to a solution that would create a win-win environment for all relevant parties"

It is not necessary to try to re examine this policy. The rationale for the policy in itself is easy to understand. As stated in the MAMPU's OSS Objectives:

• Increase choice of software usage
• Increase interoperability
• Increase capability to maintain and support software
• Reduce total cost of ownership
• Reduce vendor lock-in
• Increase security and
• Enforce Sovereignty

Each of the points are clearly highlighted and elaborated in the paper. The other fringe benefits would be that there will be more user rights, it makes better use of Government Funds, it still builds the local software economy, and it even reduces the outflow of Malaysian monies to a foreign economy. It is an extremely far sighted policy and thoroughly for the benefit of Malaysian citizens.

Pirates deserve less.

"With Malaysia recently categorised as a 'large emerging economy' by MS HQ ... intends to grow the business here at the rate benchmarked against other countries in the grouping which include Brazil, Russia, China and India."

I thought the 'Large Emerging Economies' or E7 were China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey and Mexico. Malaysia hardly has a large enough potential economy to belong in this group. Or are the similarities within this group due to the high Piracy Rates as declared by the BSA, where all of which are over 60%?

Or is it because these markets were offered with the cut down version of Windows XP, called Windows XP Starter Edition? This is the localised version which has severe artificial limitations to the detriment of the end-user's experience, namely only 3 applications can run with each opening only 3 windows. There is no support for workgroup networking, only works in low end CPUs, and has a 256MB limit on RAM. It's truly a disaster in the making.

It is no wonder then that these emerging markets are continually exploring FOSS alternatives which do not impose these arbitrary restrictions. India has a huge community of FOSS advocates, China has its own Linux distro called Red Flag Linux, Brazil is very pro FOSS and Malaysia of course has a preference to FOSS policy.

He ain't heavy, he's my brother...

"... the third goal is to make Microsoft 'more Malaysian' sharing the same objective of building the nation towards a knowledge-based economy, Yasmin said this is to fulfil Microsoft's role as an accountable and responsible corporate citizen."

The term 'knowledge-based economy' is a rather nebulous term. Ask someone what it means and it will probably be completely different to what another person thinks it is. In the case of Microsoft Malaysia, it would probably mean an economy which would support a good License Reseller market, and the training of IT professionals specific to Microsoft's products.

What us Malaysians really want in a 'Knowledge-Based' Economy is a self-sustaining ICT industry which has a framework for innovation, growth and development. Meaning that we should encourage the means of creating and supporting our own solutions.

Her aims of being a responsible corporate citizen is laudable. It's great that she has that intention for us Malaysians, however I hope that MS Msia does not follow in the footsteps of MS USA which has been convicted of monopolistic practices both in the US and in Europe.

Ah, fresh meat ....

"Investment will be focused on human capital development - this covers those who are starting to go to school, all the way to those who graduate."

The 'Get them while they are young' strategy has been successful with Apple in the past, where a whole generation of students would come out reluctant to use anything other than Macs. Unfortunately this works only for economies which can afford the full retail prices of the OS's.

But fortunately for us, the philantropic works of Mark Shuttleworth has spawned a distro called Edubuntu which is tailored for the classroom. The fact that it is based on FOSS solutions means that when the student leaves for real work, she will not be shocked in having to pay the full price of what she has been using all those years. Countries all over the world are now using this distribution for schools to great success.

Investigative Journalism in Malaysia.

All in all I found the article bad. Either the subject was wrongly quoted, or because it was crafted as such to purposely spread doubt, I just had to comment on it. I do hope that I do not come off as some fanatic. I have tried to put across references to back up my counter points, and if I have made any errors, please comment and I will correct it.

Articles like this in mainstream papers would certainly be more productive if there was more balance in the reporting, with good research justifying the points claimed.

Not that I'm in a position to tell what Ms. Yasmin should do, after all she has over 20 years in the IT industry and far more experienced than I, but it is still her first few weeks in her new position and jumping into a topic as far reaching as FOSS is a significant challenge. Learning up the concept of FOSS and its effects on developing economies like Malaysia would definitely be beneficial to her in this job. I just hope that her reference material does not just come from this site!

She has a duty to do a job, but she also has a higher duty to be a Malaysian and to do what is right for our country.

yk.

[Update by Hasan, 18 October 2006
Related blog posts:
15 Oct -- Rob Weir - An Antic Disposition: When language goes on holiday
18 Oct -- Open Malaysia blog: Watch out for more FUD]

Comments

[jimmychong]

Hi YK,

I think Yasmin’s point was that, in Malaysia, choice is limited as there exist a software procurement preference policy in place (with an implementation roadmap http://opensource.mampu.gov.my/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=37 ) – and this then presents a scenario which is totally different from merely promoting the use of OSS. Hence the limitation of choice for how can there be choice when such targets are in place? Or the procurement policy that states: “In situations where advantages and disadvantages of OSS and proprietary software are equal, preference shall be given to OSS.” http://opensource.mampu.gov.my/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=54

And in fairness to Rozana Sani who represented NST’s Tech&U (formerly Computimes), she was only reporting on the views of the newly-appointed managing director. If my memory serves me well, she also reported on the views of DRB Hicom IT (DHIT) and Rashdi Ghazalli who was representing IBM back in 2004 a few weeks after the Malaysian OSS Master Plan was launched by the then Government Chief Secretary. Don’t shoot the messenger-lah… a reporter’s task is merely to report on developments and what was being said.

On another note, I cannot help but also think that her comments mirror that of IBM’s position statement that open source software and commercial software coexist – that OSS complements complementary commercial software: “IBM opposes technology mandates or preferences for open source solutions in public sector procurements but recommends that governments require that software adhere to open, publicly available standards. … Open source software is complementary to commercial software. Many commercial software products in common use today contain one or more open source modules. While IBM has embraced the open source movement, we are also the second largest supplier of commercial software in the world, and continue to develop and deploy commercial software. Open source software and commercial software coexist today and will coexist for the future.” http://www.ibm.com/ibm/publicaffairs/gp/ipossw.html#position

Let’s now await to see if IBM will now speak out against the OSS Master Plan for it is clearly against its position statement. Could be an idea for them to contact the concerned newspaper and give views around how “IBM opposes technology mandates or preferences for open source solutions in public sector procurements…”.

Just my 2sen. :)

jimmySchong

[yoonkit]

Hi Jimmy,

Thank you for you 2 sen.

> Hence the limitation of choice for how can there be choice when such targets are in place?

If the purpose of the FOSS master plan is to enourage the use of FOSS software, then we should have such targets in place. If the Government recognises that FOSS is the way to go with respect to future procurement of Software (as highlighted in the objectives stated in the paper), then we should aim for those ideals.

However as all operations are, we are pragmatic in this approach. i.e. if there isnt a good solution in the FOSS world, then we will have to purchase proprietary solutions. This is a very practical way of dealing with it.

After all, the ideal way is to fund a local software company to write a complete FOSS solution.

Thus the 'compromise' of the current policy:

> “In situations where advantages and disadvantages of OSS and proprietary
> software are equal, preference shall be given to OSS.”

Already the policy doesnt go as far as it should. It just states the decision to take for a tie-breaker situation. It will be a rare case when the FOSS and proprietary software will be exactly equal. There are some situations which will automatically favour FOSS, and that will be a Apache vs IIS situation. However something like Eclipse vs Visual Studio will be abit more difficult.

As such, it is a great policy for the users (including the Government) as it makes sure that if they had to pay for licenses, the features will have to be far more advanced to justify any additional outflow of funds. It keeps incubents on their toes.

Remember Customers are not Fair. A deal should be to the advantage of the Customer. The preference for FOSS gives and advantage to the Customer. Ignoring FOSS and not using that as a negotiating tactic is dumb.

> And in fairness to Rozana Sani who represented NST’s Tech&U ...
> Don’t shoot the messenger-lah…
> a reporter’s task is merely to report on developments and what was being said.

Agreed that we shouldnt 'shoot' the messenger. Being a reporter is already tough enough. However reporters in Malaysia should ask more pertinent questions to their interviewees and not just swallow the 'facts' bulat-bulat. Challenge the interviewee and you'd get a far better article than a recycled press release, right? If you dont know what to ask then perhaps the Tech Section is not for you ...

> I cannot help but also think that her comments mirror
> that of IBM’s position statement that open source software
> and commercial software coexist

Well if you read the article again, Yasmin clearly states that "OSS has its place in the ecosystem, such as in academic institutions for research". She does not elaborate what other part in the ecosystem, and perhaps she may have done so offline. But why highlight 'research' only? Is it because Microsoft has got its Academic Licenses for Shared Source which puts it in an equal billing? Or is it because it gives the impression that FOSS projects are playthings and not for good use?

This is very much unlike IBM, which goes all out in promoting FOSS, sponsoring many FOSS projects, promotes it and puts its weight behind the movement. There is a huge difference in their approach, and equating these two companies is a huge disservice to IBM.

[btw, I dont work for IBM, nor am I a IBM hardware customer. They have their share of un-customer friendly people too, which I have the unfortunate experience of dealing with]

> "IBM opposes technology mandates or preferences for
> open source solutions in public sector procurements"

How this plays out will be interesting for both you and I. IBM still has alot of proprietary software (DB2, LNotes, WebSphere) and this reaction would be only natural for companies who traditionaly sold licenses to governments.

> Let’s now await to see if IBM will now speak out against
> the OSS Master Plan for it is clearly against its position statement.

However IBM has a support for FOSS products too, which gives them the unique ability to sit on both sides of the fence! Why would they want to issue a further statement when the policy actually provides for them a great opportunity?

But we must remember, the issue here is not about IBM, nor their future plans.

Its about the mis-representation of FOSS by an important MS employee.

You got to admit, the FUD in the air is as thick as the FUD from Ballmy Redmond!

yk.

[yoonkit]

The Star's version finally got printed in Tuesday's InTech. The link is here:

http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2006/10/17/corpit/15497375&sec=corpit

The reporting is better, with some pertinent queries regarding the grouping of Msia with Russia, China and India:

"While Malaysia cannot hope to compete with the scale of the potential market in these countries – India and China have populations exceeding one billion, while those of Russia and Brazil exceed 100 million – it has a mature Microsoft organisation within the country and a software industry with a strong export and growth potential.

Her goals at Microsoft Malaysia are three. One is to ensure that Microsoft’s business in Malaysia grows at a rate commensurate with the large emerging country category – although she will not say what this expected growth rate is."

The article better details the education effort MS has accomplished so far.

Finally, on elaborating on the Policy:

"However, she retains Microsoft’s traditional unhappiness with Malaysia’s official policy of favouring free and open-source software (FOSS). Yasmin says she will be seeking a dialogue with the relevant powers to understand why this is so.

In the meantime, such a policy puts developers of commercial software at a needless disadvantage and hinders their development, she says. “It’s unfortunate in general for us that Malaysian policy favours [free and] open-source software,” she laments.

“My impression is that a neutral procurement policy would be more appropriate. A technology-neutral approach within the framework of a healthy intellectual property (IP) system acts as a strong stimulus for innovation and competition.

“IP rights in software give developers an incentive to develop by providing the certainty of knowing that they and no one else will have the right to exploit the economic value of their software or software related service in the marketplace,” she says.

“And through IP rights, we can grow the Malaysian local software economy even more and further encourage our ISVs to realise their fullest potential.”"

Much of the same insinuations, that FOSS does not respect IP rights, and her effort in equating it to the Piracy Plight.

“It’s unfortunate in general for us that Malaysian policy favours [free and] open-source software,” she laments.

"In general for us"? Us meaning.... Malaysians, or Microsoft? It may be unfortunate for Microsoft, but its definitely NOT unfortunate for Malaysians!

Finally we get to see the context of her quotes. If this reporter quoted her correctly, then it makes complete sense for her to say something like this.

The reporter, H. Amir Khalid, seems to be more aware of the issues, with the inclusion of the [free and] indicating that he knows the difference between Free and Open Source software licenses.

Encouraging!

yk.

[Red1]

Hi all,
Strong points from around the table. About 'netural software approach' perhaps this is a tactical 'white flag' in a battlefield :).

Software has always been a war of sorts. Check this latest one out: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/09/1858218&from=rss

With FOSS, one have to beg the question of what is the best option for advocates to see to its fullest commercial adoption. I mean with a low percentage of the market actually using for instance Linux (the forecast next year of 83% is thumping, ok.. but...), we have to look at the other collaterals and stack usage. MS and even SAP are moving into the lower rungs of application suite and soon will arrive at the gates like Oracle did.

Some years ago, i have the honour to meet Dinesh and other OS experts in a Mavcap proposal plan to launch into the Malaysian scene for OS-cyberpreneurs to stitch OS components into complete commercially viable stacks. That is in essence such a brilliant idea, and i m not sure what is the latest on that.

As for us in the newly formed ADempiere Bazaar community ( http://adempiere.org/ ), we hope to achieve just that, and wish to work with others around the world especially here in Malaysia (as i m Malaysian based). Yes, if u happen to ask, we are a Compiere fork (another little war here (see http://www.adempiere.com/wiki/index.php/Media_Coverage )

many regards,

red1

[Ramiro Vergara]

Just a brief comment on Open Source in Latin America since you mentioned it in your post. As you know, most of he countries in Latin America are countries in development and because of this, they have approached Open Source for economic reasons (for free as a beer), however, when people understand that what is being liberated is not the price but the knowledge, they rapidly see the huge add value proposition of Open Source.

Enlaces project (mentioned in the link you added related to Chile) is a good example of the usage of Open Source for maximizing knowledge in the Chilean Education system.

My view is that Open Source is just a symptom of a much higher change that will change the fundamentals of the world economy. This is the so called "Commons-based peer production".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_production

Exciting times for our kids and the kids of our kids.

Regards

Ramiro Vergara
Adempiere Project

[Timo Kontro]

What a great thing this global open source movement is. Most of my problems get fixed on the other side of the world while I am sleeping. It is great to wake up in the morning and see that bug you reported last night is fixed. Which commercial company can do that for you?

OS movement never sleeps.

In here Finland most of the politics and bussiness thinks that OS is good for finnish economy. Moving away from using imported software products and replacing those with domestic consult services is good for everybody.

Regards

Timo Kontro
Adempiere Finland

[StevenK]

And, being open source, anyone can provide a good insight on what needs to be done.
There is a debate now going on regarding what the open source ERP ADempiere should focus in order to be a succesfull business product.
Add YOUR insights, ladies and gentlemen!
https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1615272&forum_id=610546

StevenK