A Microsoft official has claimed that governments
supporting open-source software are not helping build a viable
software ecosystem in their communities.
Chris Sharp, director for platform strategy for Microsoft in the
Asia-Pacific and Greater China region, said governments that
standardise on open-source software are hurting their local
commercial software supplier communities because these companies
are being robbed of opportunities to make money that they need to
invest in developing more software products.
Sharp, who used to work for Red Hat before joining Microsoft,
said building open-source software is a "waste of money", adding
that with open source, a company is, in effect, giving away its
intellectual property and preventing a software company from
getting back benefits from its IP.
"If you are compelled to give back to the community, then you
don't have the opportunity to benefit from that knowledge," he
said.
Sharp said there are several myths surrounding open-source
software that many people tend to accept as true.
One example he gave was that people tended to believe
open-source software is free. He pointed out, however, that even
companies that support open source are just as motivated by
commercial interests as any other commercial software supplier. He
noted that even open-source giants Red Hat and IBM are after a
return on their investments on open source.
He added that without getting back any commercial returns, a
software company will find it difficult to invest in developing new
software products, and explained that intellectual property rights
fuel sustained innovation by a software company.
Microsoft, for example, invests around $6.8bn in research and
development. "With open source, there is no way to make more
software," he said.
Sharp claimed that many of the publicised announcements that
certain governments are deploying open-source software completely
are untrue. In many cases, he said, is its just one branch or
agency of the government making the announcement, and it is not a
government-wide purchasing policy.
He urged government bodies to base their software purchasing
decisions on their actual needs, not on a software development
strategy.
Sharp cited a study which found that commercial software offered
lower total cost of ownership over open-source software, largely
because of software management issues. He added that commercial
software has also been found to be as reliable as open-source
software.
If a government goes out and anchors its purchasing policy on
open source, it will, in effect. hurt its local commercial software
community, Sharp claimed. For every $1 spent on Microsoft products,
for example, some $8 goes to the surrounding local software
community who have based their products on Microsoft technologies,
he said.
"There are many local software vendors who have based their
products on Microsoft," he added.
Geoffrey P Ramos writes for Computerworld
Philippines