Philippine Open Source Bill in the Works!
I just read Chin Wong’s Blog about the new Philippine Open Source Bill to be filed by Rep. Teddy Casino. From the title alone, we can see that there are two (2) main parts of the bill and there are a number of important main points in the document itself (and a bit of analysis by me):
- Recognition of FOSS Licenses. Section 5 of the Bill finally recognizes Free and Open Source Licenses as valid forms of software license. There have been cases when government agencies make it difficult for a bidder to propose an open source software-based solution because of the inability to transfer licenses. This is because these licenses are not commercial and thus non-transferable (or so they say). At least, with this bill, FOSS Licensed software can be included in bids without this form of discrimination.
- Procurement of software and software licenses in government agencies, promoting the development, and use of Free/Open Source Software (FOSS). The mandatory use of open standards (Section 6.1) is definitely a good move. This can possibly promote interoperable solutions and systems. However, I feel that Section 6.2 and 6.4 are too strong. Maybe, it should be better to just force at lease one open source solution in every IT government bid. This can definitely promote free choice. Forcing the use of open source software is against the principles of open source itself which is essentially choice. If we implement a “force participation rule” instead of a “force selection rule” then there is no need for FOSS usage exceptions (Section 6.3). Also free updates as specified in Section 6.4.3 might be a bit to demanding as it will require resources that cannot be “cost recovered”. This is particularly problematic for custom solutions sold to government with no service contract. Vendors and contractors have no way to recover costs since the solution was created only for government. The right to derivatives in Section 8 does not seem fair in any circumstance even for FOSS unless the software was written as part of a contract to the government.
- Mandatory FOSS instruction in HEIs. In the spirit of academic freedom, schools should be able to teach whatever it sees fit to teach. I don’t think the government should start intervening in this respect.
- Declaring illegal the patenting of known FOSS and standards or any of their derivatives thereby amending section 22 of RA 8293 otherwise known as the intellectual property code of the Philippines, and for other purposes. Now this is something interesting. I personally feel that patents should not cover concepts but tangible inventions and implementations instead. Therefore, the G723.1 algorithm/specification itself cannot be patented but the particular implementation should be patentable. At least, we can avoid the current patent minefield that is present in the US today.
This is definitely a good start. However, as a general principle, I believe the government should not prevent or limit choice and should not restrict academic freedom.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:12 am
[…] This version only contains a good number of revisions from the original version I commented about in a previous blog entry. Here are some of my new and revisited comments: […]
September 25th, 2006 at 8:15 am
[…] Instead of having to wait for the passage of the FOSS Bill, which will take some time, government agencies and offices and local government units (“LGUs”) that want to use FOSS now can simply issue software procurement guidelines based on the following Model Procurement Guidelines on Open Standards and Free and Open Source Software (the “Model Guidelines”). The Model Guidelines can be issued and implemented immediately by any government agency or LGU. By recognizing the validity and legitimacy of FOSS, government agencies can no longer discriminate against FOSS bidders and, thus, levels the playing field between FOSS and proprietary software. The Guidelines prescribe the use of open standards, the requirement of interoperability and the avoidance of vendor lock-in. However, unlike the FOSS Bill which mandates the exclusive procurement and use of FOSS, the Model Guidelines use the economic standard of total cost ownership (TCO) as the main basis in determining what ICT goods and services shall be chosen by the respective government agency. FOSS and proprietary software will compete and be judged on which has the lower TCO. In this way, proprietary software companies cannot complain of unfair treatment or discrimination. As a matter of policy, it is only when the TCO of FOSS is equal to that of proprietary software that FOSS will be given preference. It should be noted, however, that whatever type of software is chosen, whether open source or proprietary, the software must support and use open standards and formats. […]