Solon sees uphill battle in pushing for FOSS bill again

By Erwin Oliva
INQUIRER.net

MANILA, Philippines -- Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro Casino expects an uphill battle in the passage of a controversial bill that hopes to mandate government use of free and open source software (FOSS).

Casino said he has refiled House Bill 1716 after the bill was overtaken by the adjournment of the 13th Congress, which conducted at least one hearing sometime in December last year.

"This bill faces a stiff battle in the legislature. Just to illustrate, our e-Learning Center in Congress is paid for by Microsoft. The House leadership is planning to provide all Congressmen and women with free laptops, bundled with proprietary software, of course. They have the money and the pull to demolish or water down the FOSS bill," Casino said in a speech during the Software Freedom Day in UP Diliman, Quezon City.

The bill, which aims to promote the development and use of FOSS in the Philippines, faces strong opposition because it mandates government to migrate to FOSS and employ open standards in all its digital information and communication systems.

It also calls on private educational institutions to use and teach FOSS.

Section 5 of the bill indicates that the government shall use only information and communications technology goods and services that comply with open standards.

This provision also states that all government communication and data intended for public consumption shall be encoded in open standard data format, and that government shall apply only FOSS or FOSS solutions in all ICT projects and activities.

"When we were drafting the bill, we reached a crossroad on this issue. There were two roads to take: one, the well-paved road of 'free choice' which would allow government agencies free reign in choosing between FOSS and proprietary software; or two, the less-traveled path of making a clear, unequivocal choice for FOSS," Casino said.

"To tell you the truth, it was easy to decide where to go. Taking the well-paved road of 'free choice' would render our bill as nothing more than a promotional brochure for FOSS. After all, no amount of promotion or inter-office memoranda encouraging the use of FOSS can face up to the massive, multi-billion dollar, Hollywood-style glitz and glamour of proprietary software marketing," the solon said.

He said that the "less-traveled path of mandating FOSS would give the law the necessary tools and teeth to make that radical shift toward cyber freedom and democracy."

Casino believes that mandating FOSS use is more beneficial to government and the country.

"Truth to tell, the ordinary rank and file in a government office do not have the luxury of 'free choice' between Open Office and Microsoft. They simply use the software provided to them by the office. The default software is usually proprietary, like Microsoft, and the ordinary office worker will resist migration to FOSS, unless ordered to do so simply because it will entail the inconvenience of relearning what he or she has been so used to since college. When I was in college, what we used was Wordstar. Does anyone remember that?" he said.

The solon stressed that choosing which software to use for government is not a simple consumer preference issue.

"[It is] a policy issue that can't be left to each and every individual worker to decide. The FOSS bill is premised on the assumption that the use of FOSS is more beneficial to the government and the country, and so, in the exercise of government's right to 'freely choose' what is best for it and the country, we choose to use FOSS," he added.

Casino clarified that his FOSS bill does not prohibit the use of proprietary software in government.

Section 5.5 of the bill states that the use of proprietary software in "extraordinary circumstances where no FOSS equivalent meets the needs of a particular government agency or program."

Word processing, spreadsheet or Internet browsing applications are the most common software in government.

"I cannot see why we can't immediately migrate to Open Office. I've done it. My office has done it. The Supreme Court has done it. Many LGUs have done it already. But for specialized applications, the case can be argued that no equivalent FOSS can be had. But this has to be justified through an open, public hearing called for that purpose. So you see, 'free choice' is not at all hampered. We just want to make sure that free choice is also an informed choice," he said.