All Sides Of The Political Divide Should Support FOSS

It just occurred to me that both sides of the political arena should be supporting and promoting FOSS (Free & Open Source Software) software for different reasons. I'm talking general political left / right, liberal / conservative terms here, not party affiliation.

Conservative

The conservative mindset is strong on little government, encouraging people to be independent in finding their own solutions to problems, not being reliant on some centralised tax sapping entity. What could exemplify that more in software terms that FOSS? FOSS is all about individuals joining together with other individuals to solve problems rather than waiting on the good will / profit stream of a corporation.

This is the computing equivalent of small groups of like minded individuals in a neighbourhood getting together to address a common issue they face; the difference is that these solutions can be reused, modified and improved upon by others all around the world. This means an even greater good can come of any improvement than could ever happen in one small neighbourhood.

When the IT licensing and support costs plummet, it means the same solutions can be implemented cheaper which can reduce taxes, or allow the savings to be redirected elsewhere giving better value for money. Any IT solutions will need training and support, the difference with FOSS is that the support costs are spread out over a vast number of people, many of whom do it for the passion. Support for closed source software by comparison is often down to expensive contracts with companies who know they can get away with murder and still get the contract renewed. They exist to make profit after all.

Liberal

The liberal mindset is about expressing your individuality, rather than having to conform to a rule set laid down by some centralised entity. What can be more expressive than taking part somehow in a FOSS project and offering your own skills and time to be part of a bigger whole? When you have some specific need for a computing solution, the last thing you need is a "one size fits all" "off-the-shelf" answer that's locked onto rails that only suit the company who sold you a licence to use it. The more flexibility you have, the more tailor made your solution can be.

If your project involves 500 PCs, you can deploy that solution to all of them free of charge, you don't have to pay a per installation set up fee. This saves a small fortune and can easily be the difference between the project starting up or being set aside as a nice idea but too expensive, and therefore a need left unmet.

Labour

Not a left / right political mindset as such but worth including here all the same. The Labour mindset is about the working classes, about making sure that those most in need in our society do not fall between the cracks, from basic education, hospital treatment of legal help regardless of the ability to pay. FOSS allows a lower development costs, which in turn allows the same public services to be delivered for less taxes.

Because the code is free of charge and open to all, this opens the knowledge to all too. It means a lower barrier of entry to users who seek to educate themselves or training from others. This means that people have the ability to train for jobs easier, making the overall level of education better. This in turn makes a better workforce, delivering better value for all of us.

FOSS is a development and licensing model that makes the code open to everyone to see, modify and use (in most cases) free of charge regardless of the number of installs, or the use it's put to. Closed course by comparison has licensing restrictions on what uses it can be put to, as well as a cost per install, which rapidly builds up; specially for large departments like governments. All of those costs get funded by the tax payer.

In addition to the cost saving, FOSS allows us to be in control of our own software, rather than be at the mercy of a foreign corporation who's only duty is to make money. The tax payer is not forced to shell out another load of cash to upgrade to the latest versions of each piece of software every few years because the company who makes it decides to EOL (End Of Life) the version they may be using, or stops updating it.

With FOSS nothing is EOL while people are willing and able to work on it. How many people are begging Microsoft to continue support for Windows XP because they don't want to switch to Windows 7, or are perfectly happy with XP? Anyone who believes Microsoft is paying attention to those cries is kidding themselves. The deadline only extended to avoid handing the netbook market to Linux, then as a stopgap when Vista was rejected en masse by consumers. It was extended as an emergency solution until Windows 7 could be finished and shipped.

All of these would benefit from supporting FOSS adoption, with open standards in schools, government, health service etc.