When is a software purchasing decision more than a software purchasing decision? To many here, when the purchaser is the European Union.

The EU has no formal position on which is better, proprietary or open source software. To representatives of proprietary software in attendance, that was fine with them - they're happy to compete with both open source and proprietary software in the large European market. However, the EU's recent approach to procurement of software for its own computers appears to be undercutting the body's claim to technological neutrality. This was the subject of a spirited luncheon discussion with Simon Bensasson of the European Union and Tim Finton of the State Department.

Finton was diplomatic in his language, as would be expected of someone in his employ. While never taking issue directly with the EU or its approach to software, he did say that "neither the United States nor any other government should step in and dictate what type of software should be used." Finton took a broad approach to this dictum, stating "government can steer the market even by its own procurement… it should be scrupulously neutral."

Finton is a diplomat, but those who know me will tell you that despite my international relations degree, I would fail miserably in that profession. So let's be blunt here - Finton was directly challenging Bensasson, who is overseeing an EU procurement policy that is anything but neutral, as the luncheon's moderator, Wall Street Journal Europe editor Brian Carney couldn't help but point out.

In particular, as CompTIA's Robert Kramer noted earlier in the day, the EU in defining open standards in an e-government context has said the software should meet several criteria, including: 1) Software should be royalty-free. 2) Software should be controlled by a nongovernmental agency. 3) Software should have no constraints on reuse, even if that reuse isn't for its original purpose. The actual standard can be found here (http://europa.eu.int/ida/en/document/3473). This is at odds with the definition of open standards by such groups as ANSI, ECMA, ETSI, IEC, IEEE, ISO and ITU, according to Microsoft senior attorney Nicos Tsilas, who also was in attendance. Kramer says such an approach hurts Europe from a competitive standpoint, because proprietary software makers won't participate in that kind of market.

Despite the clear bias in EU procurement toward not just open source software, but an aggressive definition of such software, Bensasson insisted the EU followed "strict technological neutrality." He then demonstrated his own neutrality in the following ways:

• Makers of proprietary software in recent years want only to encourage purchases of new software, they have no desire to innovate. "The author of that software doesn't give a fig about me as a consumer."
• Anyone retaining control of software through patents (apparently even if the software is available on a RAND basis) is a monopolist, and "monopolists are an obstacle to innovation."
• The EU funds open source software development because "we want to give a chance for the technology, we want to see success for open source software."
• Any software that won't reveal its entire code is a security threat for a sovereign nation or collective organization such as the EU.
• "There is a bias on the side of the [cyber]attackers" toward proprietary software rather than open source software.
• Open source software has thousands of eyeballs monitoring it for flaws.

The luncheon audience learned that Bensasson, while intelligent and articulate, is not as careful in his language as Finton. It also heard not only a sweeping endorsement of open source software over proprietary software, but also a sweeping generalization of the debate itself. Not all open source software is monitored by thousands of eyeballs, and it's not a given that open source receives more review than proprietary software. As to revealing code, later in the day, Microsoft Vice President Umberto Paolucci noted that Italy has procured Microsoft software and the company has given the government all the access it needs to the code to reach a comfort level with the software. In fact, some of Bensasson's statements were so sweeping as to provide ammunition against open source, a fact that was quickly recognized by one of the luncheon attendees, a representative of Europe's Free Software Foundation. ACT's Jonathan Zuck noted that at various times during Bensasson's speech, either he or the FSF representative were shaking their heads in disbelief.

The so-called debate between proprietary and open source software, Jonathan said, is "at a political level made on rhetoric and myth." If there is one agreement among the software factions, he said, it is that the debate should be "taken out of the political realm." Not only did the FSF representative agree, but the entire room broke out in applause.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 7:25 AM | Digital Europe

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)