At the Front Line

Elsewhere, the report deals with the reluctance to use open source in mission-critical contexts, based on the impression that it is not mature or robust enough, and not suitable for large-scale deployment. The report quickly rebuts this, however, by saying that open source installations at major established organizations show these fears to be groundless. "The tide is turning, as open source takes on mission-critical projects and mission-critical performance levels. The pieces are there - Linux, Apache, MySQL, Eclipse, Struts - and organizations are integrating the pieces into impressive capabilities. These are not pilot projects or ancillary activities. Open source is front and centre, running the business."

The report also republishes a 2003 survey of database development managers by the Evans Data Corporation. The survey found that 62 percent of these managers expected some cost savings from implementing Linux; more than 11 percent expected a dramatic saving of more than 50 percent of costs, while 23 percent expected a more modest 10 percent saving or less. Some 38 percent expected no cost savings.

The report suggests that "in general, as you move up the [software] stack, costs increase, making the savings potential greater. In the area of serverware, Web server software is the low-hanging fruit for open source savings. Savings accrue from low to no acquisition costs, which can amount to millions of dollars in large organizations." (For a list of TCO considerations see "Free . . . But at What Price?", left.)

Koff says that, depending on your organization, and if you are using a third party for service and support, "the costs aren't really that much different [from using proprietary software]; you may be taking away 5 percent".

Some, like the 38 percent of the Evans Data survey, are not even that optimistic. Nick Abrahams, a partner with law firm Deacons with a specialty in digital industries and technology, warns that open source is not necessarily cheaper at all. In fact it can incur greater costs. An equal concern, he says, involves significant legal issues with self-drafted licences, obligations to redistribute, access to proprietary code, warranties and litigation (such as the SCO case against IBM and others).

The LEF report, in a 10-page section on legal and business issues, admits that "although the source code may be free to use, it is not free of obligations. Non-compliance with these obligations could negate the organization's right to use the software, and in certain circumstances non-compliance could signal breach of contract, making the organization potentially liable for financial damages."

According to the General Public Licence (GPL), the concept of "copyleft" mandates that everyone has the right to use, modify and redistribute a program's code or any program derived from it upon the same terms. The licences that have abounded following the development of the GPL, the Lesser General Public Licence (LGPL) and the OSI, which themselves differ on some fundamental issues, also offer differing variations on the "open" or "free" nature of open source code and how it can be used and reused, particularly with concern to incorporated proprietary code.

In the case of end-user problems with the supplied code, the report goes on to say that "it is not unusual for the licence terms that govern a person's use of open source software to be minimal to lacking in terms of warranties" and that "the very size of the user community can make it impossible to identify what attorneys refer to as the 'chain of title' - the transparent history that determines ownership of a software product".

Most of the legal argument in this section revolves around issues of using proprietary code and the impact of copyright (as opposed to "copyleft"). However, the report bluntly admits that: "Finally, the user has no remedy if use of the software fails to meet the user's needs or expectations." In other words, caveat emptor, even for emptors not paying anything.

This is not always the case in Australia, though. Abrahams says that the Trade Practices Act in Australia overrides exclusion of liability clauses in licences. A user who suffers damage could bring a suit against a code developer, even if that code developer were several links back in the chain of title.

Caveat emptor, all the same.