Close on a year ago a document was released by the National Advisory Council on Innovation. The document, authored by Sibusiso Sibisi, chairman of the Council for Industrial and Scientific Research (CSIR), highlighted the arguments in favour of government adopting open source.
At the time, it caused a fairly heated debate in and around state bodies which, although useful, was quickly overshadowed by Microsoft`s announcement that it planned to offer free software to all SA schools. To most, it looked every bit like the Redmond juggernaut had once again completely subverted the debate.
Microsoft`s offer to open its source code to government is much too little, too late.
Alastair Otter, Journalist, ITWeb
Not so though. The good news is that open source in government is very much alive. More so than ever before and, where state officials once tiptoed around the issue, the self same people are waving the open source banner with every bit as conviction as long-time advocates.
Clearly the various moves by proprietary vendors have done little to dampen the spirit of those open source advocates in government. So much so that there is now an entire government Web site devoted to open source, a planned open source resource centre at the CSIR, and the State IT Agency (SITA), government`s IT arm, plans to have its dedicated open source unit in place within the next couple of months.
Laying foundations
A lesser-known but very important part of this equation is the Centre for Public Service Innovation (CPSI), located physically within the borders of SITA. CPSI is quietly but actively advancing the open source agenda within government and is doing a lot of the work that will undoubtedly lay the foundations for further state open source implementations.
Most recent records suggest it has as many as nine open source pilots and development projects in the works at the moment. Of these, three or four are likely to be released into government and the public by mid-year. Although CPSI doesn`t do the actual development work, it has quickly formed partnerships with those that can do the work. One of the applications, a document management solution developed with the aid of the Wits computer department, is likely to be released as version one within the next two months.
I do have one concern, however. It is a small concern that in no way undermines the work that is being done, but it is the fact that despite having a clearly solid understanding of the benefits of open source, at the end of the day the success or failure of open source still comes down to money. At a government workshop a couple of days ago, various provincial representatives appealed for the freedom to implement open source in order to save on costs.
I don`t dispute that the cost factor (on the surface) is a powerful argument in favour of open source. As the proprietary vendors squeeze the last few cents out of users, and government, with tens of thousands of users, feels the pinch, the promise of reduced costs is appealing. But making a decision between open source and proprietary solutions is about much more than just money.
Open source offers a host of benefits - including access to all code without restrictions, a rapid development and maintenance path and the possibility to further develop a local software industry - that proprietary in the most part doesn`t. However, making that decision purely on surface costs is not enough. Costs don`t evaporate because you`re using open source. They are undoubtedly lower but there are still costs associated, although they may be shifted to other areas such as internal support and training.
Nevertheless, government and all the parties involved in the open source software workgroup need to be applauded for the active work they are doing in this area. There are hurdles along the way, but the mind-shift I`ve seen over the past year suggests that the commitment is high and little is going to deter them.
As for Microsoft`s offer to open its source code to governments, it is a case of far too little, too late. Even if the South African government was not already so far advanced in its open source work, I still suspect the offer would be a hollow one with too many restrictions for it to be of any use to those that are granted access.
Share