Chris Sells, Oregon, and Open Source

Thanks to Samer Ibrahim for the heads-up on Chris' testimony on the Open Source Software for Oregon Act. One observation I have is that I suspect Chris' testimony is likely to ruffle some feathers in the Open Source camp, at least among those who are sensitive to slights on their programming skills. Among other things, Chris says:

By and large, open source software is often very much like a high school band. No one cares about the money. An open source programmer just wants to have their work seen and appreciated, regardless of whether they’re good enough, or thorough enough, to be paid for it.

Now, there may in fact be some truth to this for some individuals within the Open Source movement, but I suspect that most open sourcers would be quick to point out that many open source programmers are professional programmers in their day jobs. And I do think it's a bit unfair to imply, even a little bit, that open source programmers aren't good or thorough. It's an interesting analogy, and probably even fitting for some, but I don't think it's entirely accurate of open source as a whole, and I think using that analogy weakens his overall case. He goes on:

Sometimes a high school band will be amazing; easily good enough to compete at any level. However, this is very rare when compared to professional bands that get paid based on how well they entertain their audience. Likewise, sometimes open source software achieves the same level of quality as closed source software.

Here he acknowledges that open source software can achieve high quality, but again, the implication is that it is a rare thing, and that most open source software is not high quality. Regardless of whether this is factually true, I think it's an argument that isn't necessary to make the case that legislating a preference for open source software is a bad idea. And it's exactly the kind of argument that will raise the hackles of open source developers and further convince them that commercial vs. open-source software is seen as an us against them proposition.

Later, Sells says:

Continuing the analogy, assembling your own electric guitar if fun for an enthusiast, but requires very specialized skills. Likewise, using, supporting and maintaining open source software requires real engineering skills, which is the hidden cost you dont see when initially installing open source software.

This is, I think, a much stronger analogy, in that I think very few people would argue that, on the whole, open source software is as easy for the average user as commercial software. My sense is that while it's certainly getting easier and more approachable, it's still seen as somewhat of a badge of technical chops to be able to install, configure and run servers using OSS. And while there's a great community out there where folks who know where to look can find answers about their favorite OSS programs, I think Sells is correct that this is not what government organizations are looking for when it comes to software support.

Now, despite the criticisms expressed above, I think Sells does a pretty good job of arguing against giving a privileged position to OSS over commercial software, and I'm glad that he was willing to take the time to get involved.

One thing I find especially interesting about the Oregon act is that it seems to work from the assumption that open source software is free as in "free beer", rather than "free speech" (which is, of course, exactly the opposite of what the OSS movement says). The act also seems to have other inaccuracies regarding what constitutes open source software. The act states (in part):

(a) “Open source software” means software that guarantees the user, without further
cost:
(A) Unrestricted use of the software for any purpose;
(B) Unrestricted access to the respective source code;
(C) Exhaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the software;
(D) Use of the internal mechanisms and arbitrary portions of the software, to adapt them
to the needs of the user;
(E) Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software; and
(F) Modification of the software and freedom to distribute modifications of the new resulting
software, under the same license as the original software.

Now most of this is accurate for at least some OSS, while B is, by definition, accurate for all OSS. But A, C, and E, at the very least, are not (to my knowledge) true of all OSS, so for a legislator to define "open source software" this way is either a sign of ignorance, or a sign that they are purposely restricting the universe of open source software that state agencies can consider. I'd like to think that it's the latter, but I'm betting on the former, particularly since those state agencies implementing this law will probably never read the details. They'll just hear "open source" and go with that.

Now some of the notions in the Oregon act (buying software "primarily on a value-for-money basis", for example) make perfect sense. But the notion that the state government should have to "Provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired rather than open source software" strikes me as absurd.

If the Oregon legislature is really only concerned about preventing costs due to "monopoly conditions imposed by these suppliers" or "ensur[ing] interoperability of computer systems through the use
of software and products that promote open, platform-neutral standards", it is possible to achieve these goals without effectively mandating that OSS should be the first choice of government agencies.