Analysis of New Perspectives on Public Goods Production

I recently got through reading the paper by Jyh-An Lee [PDF warning], who is a J.S.D. candidate and a Law and Economics fellow at Stanford, about the policy implications of open source software and thought it sufficiently comprehensive and well written. I consider research on this subject to be timely and appropriate for several reasons, of which the growing relevance of public policy on open source software (OSS) is but one. While open source is an undeniable production [development] and distribution model, it is first and foremost a disruptive force. I'm neither the first nor the most eloquent in stating that open source is far bigger than the software industry and even IT in general. While what is being witnessed within the software industry remains a compelling case for the potential of open source as a bona-fide disruptive force, it should be kept in proper perspective of the general trend towards open paradigms.

Even specifically within the scope of software as assets (open or closed, public or private) it is prudent to recognize its role as disruptive force. By doing so, the need for participation by various spheres within the social/political/business stratum (individuals, groups, public, private, etc.) becomes effectively clear. In this way, the aforementioned research is particularly germane in underscoring the ramifications of government policy on open source software. Below I've included analysis of some key topics and positions presented therein.

1. Migration to OSS worldwide - both Brazil and Germany are formally migrating from proprietary software to open source. Others, like Malaysia, have publicly suggested the use of OSS going as far as funding initiatives which help towards that end.
   
2. Policy analysis of trend towards OSS - there has been a dearth of in-depth analysis focused on how governments across the globe are responding to the opportunities and challenges that open source presents. In general, the focus has instead remained fixed on the commercial/private sector where it tends to be all about enterprise, enterprise, enterprise when it comes to documenting and scrutinizing the trend towards open source. While it is difficult to interpret the complex political and economic milieu in which OSS policies are borne, very few efforts attempt to do so.
3. Not through legislative action - Brazil, the United States and Argentina are solely accountable for thirty-two pieces of OSS related legislation. A striking polarization which actually speaks against the promotion of increased legislation as a method of stimulating OSS growth. I'm actually in favor of legislation which mandates open standards, if anything at all.
4. Open source as public production of public goods - A concept which begs to be explored as a means of sprucing up the input to and output from the commons, i.e. commodities developed for/by the general public in a collaborative manner. Direct involvement by government might start and end with the appropriation of funds, but the public sector should find useful involvement 
5. OSS preferred procurement - passing laws in preference of OSS is, to me, a bit extreme unless in response to a mass populist movement in favor of such. In the absence of such, the optimal approach entails ensuring procurement policies for the public sector are open source friendly. Once a level playing field is established, if proprietary beats open source 9 times out of 10, so be it, but neither should be guaranteed anything except a genuinely fair chance.
6. Subsidizing OSS production - why not? The open source community has proven capable of producing high quality products, why not subsidize this to the advantage of various pockets of the public sector? What if contractors were given precedence on bids for government contracts based on their willingness to turn over deliverables as open source? The opportunities for continued outside participation would help drastically drive down maintenance costs as well as eliminate shelf-ware.
   
7. Government intervention and competition - should government intervene on behalf of any competing entity? Pure free market ideology might say 'no,' [incidentally I don't believe there is such thing as a purely free market...there is always intervention of some variety] but the argument for government support of OSS could be made on behalf of the fact that a level playing field does not yet exist. A situation where government support is directed at achieving a proper balance followed by the institution of more laissez-faire approach might fare well over the long run.
   
8. Open standards - I'm of the opinion that outright support of open standards will eventually manifest the balance spoken to in the point above. Period.
   

Technorati Tags: public goods production |  open source software | disruptive forces