In the wake of filing the FOSS Act of 2007, discussions about free/open source software (FOSS) in the Philippines have tended to focus on the benefits that the country may reap. But is the Philippine government sufficiently equipped to deal with a comprehensive migration to FOSS?

On September 26, 2007, a roundtable discussion on the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) Act of 2007, otherwise known as House Bill No. 1716, was held. The forum, consisting of activists, legal specialists, and industry representatives, became a site for passionate exchanges about the benefits associated with and conditions required for the Philippine government’s comprehensive migration to free/open source software (FOSS).

How does FOSS benefit governments?

Based on the United Nations Development Programme’s FOSS primers, governments, particularly those in the global South, can and have derived multiple benefits from both full and partial migrations to FOSS:

(1) Decreasing total cost of ownership: The total cost of obtaining, running, and maintaining a FOSS system is significantly less than that of a proprietary system.

(2) Flexibility and interoperability: As FOSS is generally interoperable with other systems, its adoption encourages users to avoid dependence on proprietary software.

(3) Enhanced security measures: FOSS systems have stringent security and permission structures. When breaches do occur, a wide network of users and developers with access to the source code can quickly locate and repair the vulnerability.

(4) Supporting local industry and stimulating competition: The recognition of FOSS will stimulate a healthy level of competition among service providers; ensuring that the popularity and price of software is determined by the market’s response to technological innovation. Local developers can then compete successfully by producing software platforms that address local needs.

(5) Reducing reliance on imports and piracy: The country can conserve its foreign currency reserves by reducing the amount remitted to foreign software developers, in addition to lowering the incidence of piracy and the need for enforcement action.

(6) Access to information: Apart from being free of licensing fees, FOSS platforms can be adapted to supersede hardware. FOSS can, therefore, be used to empower the socially and economically marginalised through the development of computer skills.

Factors frustrating FOSS migration

Notwithstanding the numerous advantages associated with the adoption of FOSS, the following were the factors identified that may frustrate the Philippine government’s migration to FOSS:

(1) Inadequate infrastructure: The Philippines may not yet have sufficient infrastructure, in terms of skilled providers and IT personnel, to sustain the government’s comprehensive migration to FOSS.

(2) Migration costs and resistance: The cost of migrating to FOSS may well exceed the licensing costs of proprietary software, because government users have confidence in existing legacy systems and resist the introduction of new programmes.

(3) Market interference: The government’s adoption of FOSS may deprive the private sector of business opportunities and may in turn distort the market value of software.

(4) Model procurement guidelines: Current government policy indicates that it would prefer to retain a flexible system of software procurement based on the economic standard of total cost of ownership (TOC). If the TOC is less than or equal to that of proprietary software, only then will preference be given to FOSS.

Although participants generally agreed that FOSS will play a critical role in the future growth of the ICT industry and the Philippine market, in addition to improving the efficiency of the government’s operations, many noted that the FOSS Act of 2007, in its current form, may not be the most appropriate vehicle for the pursuit of these goals. 

Representatives from both government and NGOs, such as the Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA), cautioned that if a legislative response to the uptake of FOSS failed, such a setback may not only generate scepticism about the favourable capacities of FOSS in the Philippines, but may also strengthen proprietary software’s hold on the market.

Some questioned the suitability of the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) as an implementing body; describing it as a “toothless tiger.” Concerns were also expressed about the government’s logistical capacity to review millions of streams of code to ensure software’s compliance with open standards.

Finally, participants recommended that the drafters obtain input from constituencies not previously consulted, so as to generate well grounded, socially responsive legislation.

FYI: The FOSS Act of 2007

Government’s Principal Obligations

The Philippine government must not only “recognise the legitimacy of FOSS and FOSS licenses,” but will “use only ICT goods and services that comply with open standards,” “encode data intended for public consumption in open standard data format,” and “apply only FOSS or FOSS solutions in all ICT projects and activities, except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“Extraordinary Circumstances”

circumstances” include instances in which there is “no reasonably available ICT good or service supporting open standards and/or FOSS in the field, area, or activity” or a “government agency or office has an existing, widely used and widely implemented proprietary ICT system and there is no reasonably available technology using open standards and/or FOSS.”

Preference to the Philippine ICT Industry

The government must avoid dependence on a single vendor when pursuing ICT investments and preference for procurement must be given to Filipino-owned ICT companies.

Full text of the FOSS Act of 2007: <http://sync.ph/lawnormscode/wp-content/upload/HB1716-FOSS.pdf>

Sources:
“Free/Open Source Software: A General Introduction” (Malaysia: UNDP-APDIP, 2004).
“Free/Open Source Software: Government Policy” (Malaysia: UNDP-APDIP, 2004).
“Information Policies and Open Source Software in Developing Countries” from Free/Open Source Software Research Community, posted in January, 2007, <http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/camara_fonseca_jasist_oss_submission_jan06.pdf>. “Let’s Be Open: Why the Philippine Government Needs to Adopt Policies that Support Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)” from Law Norms Code, posted on April 30, 2006, <http://lawnormscode.sync.ph/?p=16>. “Promoting FOSS in Government through Model Procurement Guidelines” from Law Norms Code, posted on September 24, 2006, <http://lawnormscode.sync.ph/?p=32>.