This paper examines the debate between open source software and proprietary software, with particular attention to government adoption. It reviews the defining characteristics of open source software — including free access to source code, royalty-free distribution, and community-based modification — and contrasts these with the exclusive licensing and access controls of proprietary systems such as Microsoft Windows. The paper evaluates cost, security, and policy considerations for each model, surveying government responses at the state, federal, and international levels. It concludes by situating the debate within frameworks of technological determinism and social construction, arguing that the competitive and collaborative dynamics of open source present a meaningful challenge to conventional software economics.
The paper effectively uses direct quotation with critical framing. Rather than simply reporting what sources say, the author follows each quotation with interpretive commentary that advances the argument — for instance, noting that the CompTIA report favoring proprietary software was produced by a firm with ties to Microsoft, signaling source bias awareness.
The paper opens with a thesis-driven introduction that previews three lines of analysis. It then proceeds through two parallel descriptive-evaluative sections on open source and proprietary software before moving to a policy-focused section on government adoption. A brief theoretical section applies technological determinism to frame the debate, and a conclusion synthesizes the economic and organizational questions the open source model raises. The structure is linear and clearly signposted throughout.
Open source software has recently emerged as the frontrunner for many industries as the primary method of code production. It is widely predicted to provide more options for users in a quicker, higher-quality, and more cost-effective format than traditional proprietary software. Linux, the dominant player in the open source market, poses a considerable threat to the Microsoft operating system, which has successfully established itself in the global marketplace. Beyond its commercial potential, open source software represents a significant opportunity in the government sector. However, questions regarding security and privacy continue to challenge government officials pursuing this option. The following discussion provides an overview of open source and proprietary software and their primary components, an evaluation of government options in relation to available products, and an analysis of the social construction of open source software versus the technological determinism of proprietary software.
Open source software is distinctive in that it provides users with free access to both the object code and the source code. When modifications are made, they must be made available to interested parties within the community. The primary criteria that distinguish open source software from other programs are the following (Lerner and Tirole 821):
The program must be distributed royalty-free. All program modifications must be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. The source code must be released and made available to interested parties.
In addition, open source software is subject to a strict code review process, which provides additional security measures for its users. As more people gain access to the code, they can identify flaws or errors in the system (Fisher 21).
However, as with every piece of software, there are disadvantages to its use. Even the most skilled programmers cannot entirely escape the potential security breaches that may exist with this type of software. According to Farrow, "OSS programmers aren't generally paid to write the software they maintain. These programmers are paid by becoming well-known for writing great software. Including backdoors would be the kiss of death for a programmer. Even security-related bugs hurt an OSS programmer's reputation" (73). Furthermore, Neumann states in an article by Fisher that "Unless there's a great deal of discipline underlying the development, there's no difference in the security. Open source is not inherently more secure. If everyone has the same bad skills, all the eyeballs in the world won't help you. Unless there's discipline, you still come up with garbage" (40). Some experts argue that the key components of secure software are attention to detail and careful coding, and that both proprietary and open source software can be very secure if carefully written (Fisher 20). This demonstrates that the knowledge of the programmer can strongly influence the security potential of a given software product.
One question raised in discussions of open source software is why the product is given away at no cost to other users. A simple explanation is that users find significant value in the product, since open source software is much easier to manage because it does not carry the strict licensing requirements imposed on Microsoft products (MacVittie and MacVittie 15). This is logical, as the cost of using the traditional Microsoft operating system can be excessive when a new license must be purchased for each user. Cost is more than likely one of the chief motivators in the decision to adopt open source software over traditional proprietary methods.
The Linux operating system is the chief product that many prospective open source customers consider as their primary choice. Many IT experts find that Linux is more powerful when enthusiasm is brought into the picture (Zetlin 38). Learning the ins and outs of the system can therefore take some time and may require work beyond normal business hours. For this reason, training in Linux and other similar open source offerings should be a primary concern for IT professionals in order to improve performance and reduce the possibility of security flaws.
The total cost of ownership of open source software is highly dependent on the business environment of the firm in question. According to Wheeler, "OSS/FS isn't cost-free, because you'll still spend money for paper documentation, support, training, system administration, and so on, just as you do with proprietary systems. In many cases, the actual programs in OSS/FS distributions can be acquired freely by downloading them. However, most people will want to pay a small fee to a distributor for a nicely integrated package with CD-ROMs, paper documentation, and support. Even so, OSS/FS costs far less to acquire" (33). When upgrades are necessary, they typically cost less than equivalent upgrades for proprietary systems (34). Total cost savings resulting from the implementation of an open source system can be tremendous, typically ranging above $10,000 and potentially reaching $250,000 or more, depending on the size of the firm and other external factors (36). Wheeler further notes that "as the number of servers increases, proprietary solutions become increasingly costly. First, many proprietary systems (including Microsoft) sell per-client licenses; that means that even if your hardware can support more clients, you must pay more to actually use the hardware you've purchased. Secondly, if you want to use more computers, you must pay for more licenses in proprietary systems" (35). Businesses and other organizations considering open source software must therefore conduct a cost-benefit analysis to identify the potential savings that may result from its adoption.
Wheeler also discusses how Microsoft's strict licensing policies are forcing some customers to reevaluate their options: "Microsoft's recent licensing policies may accelerate moving away from Microsoft...this new license program has engendered a lot of resentment among Microsoft's customers...enterprises are realizing that the majority of their users are consumers or light producers of information, and that these users do not require all of the advanced features of each new version of Office...unless Microsoft makes significant concessions in its new office licensing policies, Sun's StarOffice will gain at least 10% market share at the expense of Microsoft Office by year-end 2004. Because of these licensing policies, by year-end 2003, more than 50% of enterprises will have an official strategy that mixes versions of office automation products — i.e., between multiple Microsoft Office versions or vendor products" (11). Microsoft's strict licensing policies appear to be doing more harm than good for many customers, and as a result, some are beginning to turn away from their primary provider in favor of more cost-effective solutions.
In general, open source software provides numerous benefits to its users, including potential cost savings and the freedom to modify the code as circumstances require. Security issues will always be of primary concern, but knowledgeable experts in the field should be able to manage these risks and satisfy customers.
Proprietary software is defined by the Wikipedia encyclopedia as follows: "Some individual or company holds the exclusive copyrights on a piece of software, at the same time denying other people the access to the software's source code and right to copy, modify, and study the software" (1). Proprietary software remains under some form of control at all times with regard to distribution and use. One of the most important factors of proprietary software is its quality relative to the source code and its susceptibility to security breaches through various system flaws (Butler Group 2).
The most widely used form of proprietary software today is the traditional Microsoft operating system, which has permeated businesses across the globe. As technology has continued to develop, the Microsoft product has been subject to scrutiny for its potential flaws as well as its often high cost. Because the system requires separate licensing from one user to the next, the costs of purchasing additional user licenses can be prohibitive and can disrupt business planning. In today's economy, this model is not cost-effective and can potentially stall or reduce business growth. These are among the primary reasons why many users are switching to open source software to cut costs and to modify code on their own terms.
Other disadvantages to using proprietary software also exist. According to an article in the Spyware Weekly Newsletter, "German tech news portal tecchannel is reporting that when users of Windows XP use the Windows Update web site, it transmits a list of installed software and the hardware configuration of the machine to Microsoft. Using custom-built software which takes advantage of an undocumented function of the Windows API, tecchannel has logged the data being transmitted to Microsoft just before it is encrypted. Their testing also reveals that Microsoft can identify your machine uniquely if they chose to do so, and could even lock you out of the site altogether" (1). This could potentially deter new users and drive away existing ones who might feel a heightened sense of security with open source products. Other instances of privacy intrusion have also been tracked, including the identification of DVD-watching habits and the collection of consumer information transmitted through the system.
In general, open source projects possess a tendency to challenge generalized economic theory in the following ways (Lerner and Tirole 821):
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.