Column : Case for open source isn’t open and shut

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: The communications & IT ministry has just come out with a national policy on open standards for e-governance. This is designed to ensure “seamless interoperability of various e-governance solutions developed by multiple agencies—and avoid vendor lock-in”. Since the policy is still in draft form, there’s time to think things through.

As of now, the draft allows multiple standards within any application, but forces a single standard whenever there is an interface. It also states a standard can only be chosen if it is royalty-free. Across several countries in the world, and not just developed countries, technology neutrality has been advocated as a desirable policy, because it drives choice, competition, improved service and innovation. And it is dangerous for governments to dabble in technology, because one never knows what the future might bring.

Ostensibly, Indian government is in favour of a technology neutral policy, such as in case of telecom. But the proposed draft policy on open standards is hardly technology neutral. Plus, multiple standards permit consumer choice and competition. There are cogent reasons for public policy to remain technology and vendor-neutral.

A government pre-fixing a standard also implies official knowledge about existing and future technology. Any government-mandated laws and rules that require use of specific technologies are likely to stifle innovation. This becomes even more important when the global trend is towards allowing a multiplicity of standards, with inter-operability remaining the key.

Consumer welfare? Technology evolves through industry action and different firms within the same industry are often driven by competitive motives. So, standards are bound to be different. So, instead of straight-jacketing technological evolution, let’s accept multiple standards.

But we should want these standards to be compatible and work with each other and this is the inter-operability issue. No one can anticipate advances in technology, least of all the government. Nor is it always the case that the ‘best’ technology, however defined, always wins in the marketplace. VCRs offer the best counter-example.

The average life-cycle for technology is short, even more so for software. But the underlying data may need to last for decades and one shouldn’t get stuck with a single standard. The sensible course for any government is to offer choice in standards, including choice in inter-operability.