A controversial new partnership between the South African government and the world’s leading software company, Microsoft, is at the centre of a heated debate about the best way to roll out IT access to poor communities.
The memorandum of understanding signed by the Department of Communications parastatal the Universal Services Agency (USA) and Microsoft aims to roll out free Microsoft software and training to telecentres in all 284 municipalities over three years.
However, critics claim that the agreement contradicts the Cabinet-level open-source strategy that was approved in June 2003.
“Open-source” is a term used for computer software that has been built by developers who make the source code freely available. This is unlike the more widely known proprietary software model, where a software product is owned by a single company and users pay to use it.
Alstair Otter, an open-source advocate, said the deal appears to be “ill-informed” and that people need to think about this agreement in the light of a long-term strategy.
He said: “This agreement seems very underhanded, we have seen this before. What is going to happen? Will Microsoft walk away in three years?”
In 2002 the organisation SchoolNet Namibia rejected an offer of free software from Microsoft because of the money it would have to fork out for licences. SchoolNet is a voluntary organisation that works to get schools in Namibia wired to the Internet.
In a letter to Microsoft regional manager George Ferreira, SchoolNet Namibia founding executive director Joris Komen, said the offer would leave the organisation with a bill for $9 000 for operating systems licensing.
Although details of the agreement have not been released; USA’s CEO Sam Galube said there will be no financial exchange between USA and Microsoft.
“After three years the partnership will be reviewed and will hopefully be renewed,” said Galube. “At no point does the agreement say that we are expected to pay, we will not be able to pay them a penny,” he said.
Galube said Microsoft will supply all necessary software free of charge and that the agreement also covers upgrades and training.
Microsoft South Africa MD Gordon Frazer confirmed that the latest server and desktop software would be provided free of charge.
When questioned about upgrade costs that fall outside the three-year agreement, he said that the partnership would be evaluated regularly.
Galube was quick to reiterate that the deal was not mutually exclusive and it did not prevent USA from using open-source software in schools or telecentres.
According to Galube, USA is involved in a pilot programme with 10 schools that have had open-source software installed and which are being monitored over 10 months as part of a feasibility study into the benefits of open-source software.
Galube said USA did not choose Microsoft over open-source software and that the Microsoft offer was the only one on the table, which is why the agency decided to accept it.
However, the Shuttleworth Foundation’s Hilton Theuniessen said that USA does not need to be offered open-source software because it is freely available to anyone.
“There are studies out there that prove that open-source software can be used in telecentres. If they had done their research properly they would have realised that there are many software alternatives in open source,” said Theuniessen.
A report titled Comparison Study of Free/Open Source and Proprietary Software in an African Context, makes numerous recommendations to the continent’s policy-makers including analysing the total cost of ownership and to consider value over cost.
Theunissen said it is great that Microsoft is offering free software but questioned Microsoft’s intentions claiming it is locking people into Microsoft products. “ICT is more than having access: it’s about ownership,” said Theuniessen.
The open-source versus proprietary software debate is a hot issue not only in South Africa. A number of governments from countries as diverse as Thailand, Germany, Spain and Brazil have moved over to open source software recently.
Conflict of interest
Microsoft refused to get into a discussion this week about the possible conflict of interest posed by its director of legal and corporate affairs, Chose Choeu, also holding the position of chairperson at the Universal Services Agency (USA).
Microsoft spokesperson Dominique Pienaar said it was not something the company wanted to discuss and that Microsoft did not believe there was any conflict of interest.
The Mail & Guardian was unable to discuss this matter with Choeu himself as he is not considered a Microsoft spokesperson and therefore not permitted to talk to the media.
USA’s CEO, Sam Galube, says the decision to work with Microsoft was driven by USA’s strategic plan and that Choeu’s position was presented to the Minister of Communications, Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, during bilateral meetings over the partnership.
“This collaboration had nothing to do with our chairperson’s involvement with Microsoft,” said Galube. — Mail & Guardian reporter