September 29,
2004
Co-Chairs Bill
Hauck & Joanne Kozberg
California Performance Review Commission
c/o Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SO10:
Explore Open Source Alternatives
Dear Co-Chairs
Hauck and Kozberg:
On behalf of
the Center for Individual Freedom, I submit this public comment
to the California Performance Review ("CPR"). While the
Center applauds most of the CPRs recommendations and enthusiastically
supports its goals of increasing government efficiency, productivity
and accountability, we are troubled by recommendation "SO10:
Explore Open Source Alternatives," which seems to suggest that
the State of California implement a procurement preference in favor
of open source software over proprietary software.
Specifically,
the recommendation suggests that California "should take an
inventory of software purchases and software renewals
and
implement open source alternatives where feasible." It also
further suggests that the State "[i]ncorporate open source
software as a viable alternative to any software procurement."
As a non-partisan,
non-profit advocacy organization that supports free market principles
while promoting fair, honest and accountable government, the Center
believes that if recommendation SO10 is implemented, the necessary
result would not only be state government discrimination against
proprietary software in purchasing, but also reduced efficiency
and productivity. As with all government procurement decisions,
the Center believes the State should purchase or license software
based upon fair evaluations and assessments of the comparative merits
of all competing products, both open source and proprietary software,
alike. In other words, California should continue its practice of
buying that software which best equips the State at the lowest cost
while providing the greatest value. Doing so will not only ensure
that each software purchase meets the specific needs of the State,
but also that it does so by making the best use of scarce taxpayer
resources.
In general,
both open source and proprietary software have their own strengths
and weaknesses that vary from application to application. This means
that, when it comes to purchasing or licensing software, there can
be no one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, there are many contexts
in which proprietary software is a better value and more cost effective,
and there are others where open source software might be the preferable
choice. Nevertheless, CPR recommendation SO10 does not suggest such
an even-handed and balanced approach to the States software
procurement decisions. Instead, it indicates a specific preference
for open
source software
because, as stated in the summary, "open source software
can in many cases provide the same functionality as closed source
software at a much lower total cost of ownership." While this
may be true in specific circumstances, it is certainly not a universal
rule that should govern all of Californias software procurement
decisions.
Indeed, CPR
recommendation SO10 seems to be a very one-sided assessment of the
software world, asserting a number of possible benefits of open
source software products, while ignoring not only their attendant
drawbacks but also the competing merits of proprietary software
solutions. Much of the recommendations discussion simply does
not address the numerous considerations that should be considered
when the State or anyone decides to purchase or license
a software product for a specific purpose. A wide variety of factors
can have tremendous impact on short-term and long-term costs, productivity,
interoperability, compatibility, efficiency and value all
factors that should be fully considered when the State makes its
software procurement decisions. Taking note of these factors is
all the more important since CPR recommendation SO10 suggests that
California will proceed by giving preference to open source code
in all of its software procurement decisions.
Here are just
a few such considerations:
-
When total
cost of ownership is considered, open source software is not
inherently less costly than proprietary software. Although open
source software is often distributed for free or at a much-reduced
fee, the cost of training, implementation, configuration, maintenance,
and upgrading can be tremendous, far outweighing any up-front
savings.
-
Open source
software is potentially less secure than its proprietary competition.
In fact, the public exchange of open source code can compromise
the security of open source software products, and the public
availability of the source code can pose a significant problem
when open source software is used in sensitive settings, such
as government IT contexts where information may include private
information collected from wide segments of the population.
Several studies have shown that hacker attacks against open
source software have been steadily increasing. This is troubling
since often there is no single place IT professionals can go
to address security pitfalls in open source software that is
often distributed without support and that may have been significantly
altered for the particular setting in which the software is
used. Protection of private information kept by government is
a fundamental responsibility of government.
-
Unlike proprietary
software, open source software usually comes with no warranty
(or if it does, such warranty is often inapplicable if the code
has been altered to fit the needs of a specific use), leaving
no recourse should the software malfunction. Closed source software
is usually licensed along with a warranty, documentation and
support. This means that not only are there experts to turn
to when problems occur, but the State would have legal recourse
to recover costs if the software fails to perform.
-
Often misunderstood,
the adoption of open source software does not ensure any greater
level of compatibility or interoperability between technology
and users. In fact, since open source code can be, and often
is, modified, open source software that is interoperable is
often altered by the user to a point that breaks interoperability.
-
While it
is true that public access to source code in open source software
allows for the possibility that the product can be used across
various platforms and users, the same and perhaps more efficient
compatibility and interoperability is available through proprietary
products. The entirety of the software world, both open source
and proprietary, alike, have recognized the necessity of being
able to move data from technology to technology and from user
to user. As a result, proprietary software producers and companies
have embraced "open standards" so that their products
can be compatible with and operate across various platforms,
technologies and user boundaries. The industry-wide adoption
of open standards agreements has proactively addressed the compatibility
and interoperability concerns of open source advocates while
protecting the intellectual property rights of proprietary software
makers.
In the past
two years, nearly two dozen states have rejected similar proposals
that would have given preference to open source software in procurement
decisions. These states have rejected such proposals because they
recognized that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for software
procurement, and that each software purchasing decision must be
made based on the specific needs and requirements of the softwares
use. In fact, only two-years ago, the California legislature chose
not to take up a bill mandating a preference for open source software.
The Center believes
that the competitive marketplace provides the best forum in which
California can make all of its software procurement decisions. Limiting
choice or giving a preference to one type of software over another
which is SO10s tacit recommendation is never
in the States or the taxpayers best interest. Doing
so can only limit Californias ability to find the best solutions
to tomorrows technological challenges.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Mazzella
Executive Director
|