Response to the Federal govt RFI

Wed Feb 18 06:48:07 UTC 2009

Hello all,

As many of you know the Canadian government has produced a formal
Request for Information (RFI) regarding "no cost software" (which
lumps together FOSS as well as free-to-download proprietary).

I haven't had the time to create a complete doc on behalf of
TLUG or CLUE, but  I'm at least planning to put in a submission
on my own behalf.

I've attached a draft of what I've done so far. There are three
questions of the 10 -- #4, #8 and #10 -- that I either don't fully
understand or don't have an answer for. Any assistance or suggestions
will be welcomed, and I'll be happy to credit on the document the
name of anyone who helps.

- Evan

-------------------------------------------------------------

Q1. In the Overview, the Crown provided a definition for No
Charge Licensed Software. Is this an appropriate definition?

No, it is not appropriate.

The current definition encompasses two categories of software that share a single trait in common but are otherwise substantially different:

Software that is free of cost for an individual to download but otherwise proprietary, usually shipped in binary-only form (to be referred to in the rest of this document as “free-proprietary software”)

Software that upholds both senses of the the English word “free” -- not only free of cost (in French, gratuit) but also free of most limitations to use, copy or redistribute (in French, libre) – (to be referred to in the rest of this document as “open source software”)

Indeed, confusion about the two uses of the word “free” have led to the common use of the term “Open Source” to describe software distributed with such freedoms. “Free Software”, a term used by proponents of such software, has often been confused with software that is free of cost. This confusion, we believe, is menifested in the Crown's improperly combining these two different kinds of software for the purpose of this RFI.

How is “free-proprietary” software different from “open source” software?

Many different software licences that qualify as “open source” according to guidelines of the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org) or “free software” according the the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org), they share significant common and basic traits:

They do not limit re-distribution;
They do not define inappropriate use nor put any limitations on use;
They supply source code and allow anyone to make modifications for their own use;
They allow and encourage (and in some licenses they require) that modifications are also distributed with these same charateristics

Proprietary-free software generally lack some or all of the above characteristics; indeed, they are no different from the conventional packaged software except that under a certain circumstance it is downloadable at no cost. Generally, free versions of proprietary-free software are provided as promotions, preliminary versions, or as enabling tools or drivers to support other non-free software or hardware. The revenue model behind the production of proprietary-free software ultimately requires that revenue is derived from either the software or something that the software enables.

Conversely, open source software is intended to be provided as a finished product, not intended to promote something else. Its revenue model generally avoids monetizing the software itself, instead providers derive revenue from ancillary services such as support, training and consulting which are not necessarily required for the operation of the software.

Because of the differences in purpose and revenue model, often free-proprietary software has various limitations, not all of which may be known at the time of first use or until the license is read in detail:

Certain features are “locked” unless a fee is paid or some action is taken
The software is time-limited and will stop working after a certain period or on a certain date
Free use may be restricted to personal or non-profit systems
The software is a preliminary or “beta” version; the full release version must be paid for
The software contains advertising which in some cases can be turned off by paying a fee1
Current version is free to download; future versions and upgrades will be charged for
Proper use of the software requires registration (and loss of privacy)
Messages “encouraging” users to send money are shown.

In other words, what may appear to be “free” may instead be just a demonstration, or software disabled in such a manner as to encourage purchase of the full version. It is not a coincidence that the terms “nagware” and “crippleware” have been coined, most often to refer to free-proprietary software.

By definition (of the common traits explained above), open source software is not susceptable to such limitations.

There are occasional legitimate and helpful uses of free-proprietary software – hardware drivers and  evaluations, for example. However, such software is so substantially different in characteristics and motivation that it should not be “lumped in”  with open source software for the purpose of this RFI or any other future Crown request for goods, services or information.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Q2. What are reasonable criteria that the Crown should consider
in a decision process for acquiring No Charge Licensed Software?
Are there circumstances in which the acquisition of No Charge
Licensed Software would not be advisable?

As stated above, we can demonstrate that free-proprietary software – while serving some useful purposes – is rarely useful in production environments. We are not aware of any legally acquired free-proprietary software that us useful for production environments without requiring an upgrade to a paid version.
Conversely, we are of the position that open source software should be considered in any situation in which an open source alternative exists to conventional proprietary software. Open source alternatives will not always be the superior choice in regards to features and performance; however, the phenomenal flexibility and adaptability of open source software should also be a consideration in tenders and RFPs.
We also suggest consideration of the following issues when developing policies and processes regarding the procurement of open source software:
1.The listed “source” or maintainer of a specific open source software package may not necessarily be indicative of – or aligned with – the best sources of knowledge and support for that package. A package should not be demoted if it is listed as having a foreign source, if high quality Canadian support organizations are prepared to support it. Likewise, a package may be seen to be “maintained” by a single individual, yet it may be surrounded by a substantial infrastructure of support, training and integration.
2.For the purposes of any tender or RFP, it is the supplier of support and integration services who must be primarily evaluated. Conventional “vendor” evaluations are of reduced value in the virtual, decentralized world of open source software development. Even in the case where an open source software package is seen to have a high-profile sponsor (such as Sun's involvement in OpenOffice.org and MySQL or Google's support of the Mozilla Project), procurement policies must primarily focus on the suitability and track record of the proposed local implementors. Because of the availability of source code, a contracted implementor of open source software is capable of providing support at a level far beyond that of proprietary software resellers. 
3.The Crown must take into consideration that, because of the models supporting their development, open source software projects usually have negligible marketing talents and resources behind them. It is more important than usual to look beyond the gloss of vendor presentations to evaluate the quality of the service to be provided. Open source support companies usually have less marketing resources than similarly sized companies selling proprietary solutions. Open source support organizations break the conventional Value-Added Reseller (VAR) model because they are not reselling anything – and as such do not receive financial incentives and support from the software supplier. The Crown should make an extra effort when evaluating IT solutions based on open source software, not to confuse the quality of a solution with the gloss surrounding it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Q3. What factors other than price should be considered as part
of an evaluation guideline for No Charge Licensed Software? Are
there other factors beyond those outlined in Appendix A & B that
the Crown should consider?

As stated above, the personal background of the open source software developers must not be as much of a point of evaluation as it is for vendors of conventional proprietary software. However, it is legitimate to evaluate the stability or health of any open source project that is proposed for Crown use.

The following criteria may assist in determining the long-term stability and health of open source software projects:
1.How long has the project existed?
2.How long has the current lead developer held that position?
3.Is there an incoporporated body supporting the organization? If so, who are its sponsors?
4.What is the size of the developer community?
5.When was its last release?
6.Do developers consider the current version stable? (Is the release version less than 1.0)
7.How often are updates released?
8.Is the software included in the repositories of major Linux distributions?

Related criteria that may be asked of a service provider proposing  support for an open source project – that might not be asked of a proprietary software reseller may include:
1.How long has the provider supported the project?
2.Are any of the provider's staff on the projects development team?
3.Have staff contributed code, documentation reviews, bug reports or other resources?
4.Are they subscribed to the project's mailing list(s)?

Requests for examples of existing uses and case studies are completely appropriate, as they should be for any software being considered.

------------------------------------------------------------

Q4. How should existing Government Furnished Equipment,
Services, Service Level Agreements and internal resources be
considered when evaluating the usage of No Charge Licensed
Software?

We do not have a response to this question.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Q5. How practical is No Charge Licensed Software? Are there
hidden costs that need to be considered as part of the process
of evaluating the alternatives available?

As listed above, we have serious concerns about the limitations, often hidden, within free-proprietary software. As well the Crown should consider what file formats and interfaces are being used, and receive a declaration related to any claims of patents or other intellectual property.

Genuine open source software entails no hidden costs; indeed, it is indeed a matter of “what you see is what you get”. Any warrantees, if even possible, would need to be provided by the integrator as opposed to the software developer(s). The Crown needs to ensure that any proposed provider of solutions based on open source software clarify the availability and cost – as applicable – of Tutorial and Reference documentation.

Services such as training, integration, installation, configuration and maintenance should be quoted by solution providers using open source software. Local providers may be responsible for sourcing services and materials such as courseware which may usually be provided by proprietary software vendors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q6. What are the general financial, technical and security risks associated with acquiring and using No Charge Licensed Software?

As listed above, we have serious concerns about the limitations, often hidden, within free-proprietary software. It is critical to evaluate the license of any software of this kind in advance of using it, even for evaluation purposes. Usually, free-proprietary software has little or no support, even less than the community of volunteers who routinely help users of open source software.

For open source software, the risk evaluation should be similar to that for proprietary software. As recommended above, the stability of open source projects should be evaluated as well as that of the proposed solution providers, to compensate for the lack of a software “vendor” to evaluate.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Q7. How do Open Standards and interoperability factor into
evaluation considerations?

Because it is supplied with source code, any interfaces and formats used by open source software are by definition open themselves. As such open source software is most likely to use open standards (such as the ISO-standard OpenDocument format) than proprietary software that has an interest in “vendor lock-in”. Open source software developers have never asserted patents or other intellectual property claims on such formats and interfaces. As such, standards made with and by open source software will always remain open and available. Users of open source now will avoid the current situation in which old documents can no longer be read because they were created with proprietary formats by old proprietary software which is no longer available.

Indeed, open source software has evolved in a world that has been dominated by proprietary software vendors; it had to be interoperable in order to even be accepted. Tools such as the Samba file-sharing infrastructure have been critical components of the acceptance of open source systems into the IT mainstream. Whenever possible open source software developers have strived to maintain compatibility with proprietary counterparts; however the reverse is not true. As a result, open source software tends to be easier to intergrate with other systems than proprietary tools. (As a simple example, most modern Linux and BSD based operating systems are capable of dual booting and mounting of Windows filesystems. The reverse is not true.)

-------------------------------------------------------------
Q8. How does the technology factor into the evaluation
consideration, such as ability to maintain and evergreen?

We do not have a response to this question.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q9. How does the Crown evaluate the flexibility of the licensing models for No Charge Licensed Software?

As mentioned in the response to Q1, all licenses claimed to meet well-understood definitions of “open source” or “free software” have a number of common characteristics.

A detailed contrast of the various approaches is beyond the scope of the RFI; however, it is reasonable to assert a number of criteria that should be evaluated, depending on the particular needs of the Crown:

The main distinction between most licenses is in what rights or limitations exist when open source source software is modifed (that is, changed in source code as opposed to configured).

Some licences provide no limitation, allowing a user to take the software, make modifications to it, and close the result as proprietary. Other licenses prohibit this, requiring any modifications to be as open as the original software.

If the purpose of the Crown's procurement is as an end-user, and not as a re-distributor of open source software, than the distinctions above may not be significant. Most (but not all) open source software licenses freely allow modification and do not require modifications to be open of the software is not redistributed. The Crown is advised to ensure in its RFPs that the licenses provide the required rights, either to ensure the continued freedom of modifications, or to allow proprietary derivatives.

It is our position that open source software which is modified by the Crown on behalf of the people of Canada should be as free as the original code, whether or not the software license requires it. Keeping modifications open gives benefit to Canadians to learn, reduce their own IT costs, and help the Crown ensure its software is as secure as possible.

----------------------------------------------------------- 
Q10. What impact will No Charge Licensed Software have on
Government Licensed End-User Networks
(http://software.tpsgc.gc.ca//catalogue/index-e.cfm)

We do not have a response to this question.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists