Free/Libre/Open/Source Software (FLOSS ) ^[1] policies emerge from the open source and free software movement. South Africa adopted a FLOSS policy in 2007 requiring that government uses open-source software and adopts open licenses. The policy was justified as providing support for access to knowledge, citizens participation, democratisation, development and economic growth. Although, South Africa as one of the first countries in the world adopted a FLOSS policy in 2007 it does not necessarily mean that open source and open licenses are implemented in practice. This research explores a perceived gap between the promise and practise of the FLOSS policy in South Africa.

Research design

The case-study and fieldwork was done in South Africa in 2010, based on ethnographic methods, incorporating an analysis of literature, policy documents, reports and interviews. The use of qualitative ethnographic research was preferable in this case, in order to explore the perceptions of the FLOSS policy and practice. The fieldwork was in Situ , (Baszanger & Dodier, 1997, p. 9) and of an exploratory nature. Twenty persons were interviewed in the period between April and June 2010.

In order to limit the scope of the research we focused on the actors involved in the FLOSS movements as researchers, developers, activists or consultants for government. The interviews explored the perceptions of these actors.. Given this study is non-anonymous, it is necessary to be aware of the implications of interviewees participation and interests in FLOSS, and in some cases their involvement in the policymaking process and how this may affect how they express their perception of government’s implementation of the FLOSS policy. As such this research represents some of the possible meanings and particular accounts of individuals’ views and opinions (Byrne, 2003, p. 182).

Government Embracing Openness and FLOSS Policies

The FLOSS policy was approved in October, 2006 by the Government IT Officer’s Council. The South African Cabinet approved the revised FOSS policy and strategy on 22 February 2007^[2]. The South African Government supported FOSS already in 2003 by accepting the Proposed Open Source Software (OSS) policy for Government (Cabinet Memorandu m No. 29 of 2003) put forward by the then Department of Arts and Culture, Science and Technology and fully supported by the GITO Council (FOSS, 2006). A number of different reasons underlay the decision to move to FLOSS: from the cost of software, to perceived gains in flexibility, transparency, and the potential of open ICTs to drive development, education and economic growth.

As well as requiring a preference for open source software in public procurement , the FLOSS policy also mentions Open Content which places clear emphasis on legal aspects of openness. Open Content requirements might be taken to suggest that data should also be shared freely with licenses, such as the appropriate Creative Commons licenses, that allow for it to be re-mixed and redistributed. The South African Government's promise expressed in the FLOSS policy shows a clear preference for using open licenses.

However, findings from this study reveal gaps between what the policy states and how the policy is perceived by the interviewees to be implemented in practise. The 2006 preference in the FLOSS policy for open source software, Open Content and open licensing such as Creative Commons has more recently been contradicted by revisions of the copyright act that aims to lock-down knowledge. Initiatives such as the African commons project, Creative Commons South Africa and Freedom to Innovate (FTISA), South Africa are active in this debate and have expressed their concerns. Open data initiatives, which are currently being adopted in many countries across the world, may have a lot to learn from the South African experience, where a policy explicitly focussed on technical openness and openness of content has been met with limited interest and implementation in the bureaucracy, and with counter-movements that have actively challenged their implementation.

Gaps and Contradictions: FLOSS Policy and Practice

Amongst many of the interviewees for this study it was felt that government could do much more to implement its FLOSS policy. According to Rasigan Maharajh the Director of the Institute for Economic Research on Innovation (IERI) and Freedom to Innovate in South Africa (FTISA), although “the South African government has a good policy on open source, ...I have not seen a tender document which shows preferentially that open source is what is being requested” (R. Maharajh, personal communication, May 4, 2010). This highlights that it is necessary to study further how policies are actually implemented, and whether the government can effectively enforce the policy, or if the policy only works as a guideline, if at all.

Derek Keats is the Deputy Vice Chancellor at the Knowledge and Information Management Unit at Wits University, and the founder of African Virtual Open Initiatives and Resources ^[3] (AVOIR) at the University of the Western Cape. According to Keats the impact of FLOSS policy in practice is “almost nothing. It's small, very small, I mean maybe it's 1% or 0.5 %, really small” (D. Keats, personal communication, June 11, 2010). There appear to be numerous reasons for this. Andrew Rens, Intellectual Property fellow at the Shuttleworth Foundation and lead the Creative Commons in South Africa offers one: “there is not a great amount of capacity in government, so people are often less likely to educate themselves, and less likely to have time and energy to do that as they have got bigger problems to deal with. In developing countries you have the tension, constantly around lack of resources” (A. Rens, personal communication, May 21, 2010). Rens explains that, in practice, many government officials are not aware that government prefers the Creative Commons for content (ibid).

Another issue according to Keats is that “procurements is still done the classic way through tender and the big companies always come back responding to the tender (…) government can do those kind of corporate engineering things, because they are significantly big players. But they don't (...) possibly there are vested interests involved” (D. Keats, personal communication June 11, 2010). Rens points to how many of the big IT contracts specify Open Source in a tender but then the company provides proprietary software, and as such violates the tender. This in theory means the tender can be revoked and the companies not paid. Although this does not appear to have happened often, there is at least one case where this seems to have been the reason for a the tender between the Ministry of Home Affairs and an IT company called Gijima was revoked^[4] (A. Rens, personal communication, May 21, 2010). Many have argued that the FLOSS policy would promote greater involvement of local SMEs in delivering government IT contracts. However, implementation here appears to be falling short. Keats states:

Big corporations though are not always a barrier to open source. Some companies investing in South Africa, such as IBM, favour open source. Calvyn Van Zyl at the IBM Open Computing and Linux Lab in Johannesburg says that IBM encourages their employees to use open source because it is also an incentive for learning and that IBM invests in Open source because it favours innovation (C. Van Zyl, personal communication, May 5, 2010). However, the reasons for which companies (large and small) may be supportive of open source are not always the same as the reasons held by campaigns and activists for the FLOSS policy.

Keats points out that “if government were to implement their policy, the Open Source business models would be hugely significant, and offer massive opportunities, because government spends billions on IT every year” (D. Keats, personal communication, June 11, 2010). For many, the opportunities of open source are not only about economic value, but about how that value is distributed, and what return citizens get on government IT investments. In South Africa, Washington Consensus neo-liberal economic policies were adopted under the Mbeki government. Rens explains how these policies state that “if you for instance increase GDP on a macro level then it equals wealth. But we end up with things like jobless growth” (A. Rens, personal communication, May 21, 2010). According to Rens it is important to also be aware of the aspect of development that is related to freedom (A. Rens, personal communication, May 21, 2010). Movements based on openness and FLOSS can emphasise the development of freedom open source brings: creating incentives for building capabilities to deal with challenges such as the digital divide. According to Rens, FLOSS and Creative Commons can give freedom: “So if you gain in terms of cost, and maybe better software, Ubuntu is as good as Windows, if not better. The most important thing is that these alternatives give you a freedom you did not have before” (A. Rens, personal communication, May 21, 2010). However, government open policies in practice have often focused on cost reduction over freedom promoting aspects of open content and software. If the freedom aspect is not involved, open policies will not necessarily provide empowerment. It is also important to be aware of different understandings of freedom and which citizens and communities benefit or are or are not empowered by certain open initiatives.

Openness under threat

In 2011 a revision of the copyright act, including an Intellectual Property Bill, was passed in South Africa^[5]. This bill aims to lock-down knowledge with tighter Intellectual Property (IP) protections. This bill, which is is under dispute, appears to be in tension with the 2006 FLOSS policy. These contradictions can also be seen in wider legislation regarding IP including the Traditional Knowledge Bill and the more recent Protection of State information act that was passed in November 2011. Revisions of the copyright act and the secrecy bill appear to contradict the FLOSS policy and to also to be at odds with South Africa's participation in the Open Government Partnership (OGP). However it might both be that the IP Bill is a response to the openness policy, or on another hand a response to the exploitations of Indigenous Knowledge by international corporations. Another reason could be that openness arguments have not been won right across the government. These issues seem to be interrelated and crucial to study further in order to avoid a binary vision of separate policies as occurrence of revolution and counter-revolutions in the discourse of locking down or opening-up knowledge and government data.

Such contradictions regarding how openness and access to knowledge is practised by the government were emphasized by the interviewees as essential to deal with. Eve Gray is an Honorary Research Associate at the Centre for Education Technology at the University of Cape Town, and is involved in research and consultancy on Open Access and publishing. According to Gray, the government acts in a contradictory manner while passing open policies but at the same time, in practice, locking down knowledge (E. Gray, personal communication, April 24, 2010). Movements such as the African Commons Project and Creative Commons South Africa are fighting for the copyright act from 1978 to be revised, and adapted to a digital age. So there is a dispute regarding how the government can lock down knowledge in a proprietary way, while at the same time embracing openness and open policies. The African Commons project has a particular focus on how Creative Commons and the idea of openness and projects based on the sharing of knowledge have potential both in education and innovation. According to Kerryn Mckay, the director of the African Commons Project, government attitudes to openness are apparently inconsistent and in some cases it is focussed on closing down knowledge based on the idea that this will forward innovation and the creation of knowledge in South Africa. There are some genuine tensions though to address. For example, issues regarding traditional knowledge (Dean, 2011) concern how companies from the “North” are commercially exploiting knowledge that should benefit South Africa and belong to the commons. Further research needs to be done on what is happening currently in this field in South Africa (K. McKay, personal communication, June 1, 2010), and to explore how far protecting traditional knowledge can be compatible with open content policies

Both government and citizen inactivity on openness may also be as much of a threat to the FLOSS policy as are counter-reactions to it. McKay suggests that South Africans are waiting for the government to do things for them, so that the initiative is not coming from the people themselves. She explains that this may be part of the reason why the implementation of Creative Commons is slow, despite the potential, and common ground with the already existing values and philosophies in the society. For instance, in India and Brazil, according to McKay, the implementation, uptake and undertaking of Creative Commons is very fast (K. McKay, personal communication, June 1, 2010).

Potentials and Challenges of FLOSS in a wider context

The role of FLOSS in building citizens capabilities is emphasised by the interviewees to be important. “Obviously FLOSS provides huge means for people to equalise, because they don't have to pay for software. So for instance, if you think of accessing government services nobody should have to pay for software in order to access a government service. Again, the access to knowledge will also help reduce inequalities” (A. Rens, personal communication, May 21, 2010). This statement shows how different aspects of FLOSS are interlinked. The gains of no cost plus business opportunities are emphasised. However, as already noted, for many the governance of FLOSS is also about democratic freedoms. Keats points out that “It is nothing wrong having laws that reasonably protect businesses but I think, you know, a lot of the relevant laws are taken to unreasonable levels, so FLOSS as a means to preserve democracy and freedom is very important” (D. Keats, personal communication June 11, 2010).

While FLOSS gives us freedom of choice, the philosophical aspects of FLOSS are fundamental. In the South African context FLOSS has been connected to both the philosophy of Ubuntu and the Freedom Charter. Keats points out that there is a need to raise awareness and to bridge those philosophies from traditional communities into the digital world, because most people are not aware of, or do not make this connection (D. Keats, personal communication June 11, 2010). Nhlanla Mabaso is director at Computer Network Services (CNS) at Wits University and the founder of the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), Meraka's Open Source Centre, and director at Freedom To Innovate South Africa (FTISA). He emphasises that the ideas from the Freedom Charter can be transferred to the digital commons:

The digital commons and access to knowledge for development are both significant, however there are also numerous related challenges. According to Rens, the digital knowledge commons “changes how the knowledge spreads (…) and moreover the massively increased knowledge flow (A. Rens, Interview, 21 May, 2010). Although the potentials are there, Keats says that “we really will only benefit from the digital commons when we become major contributors to it” (D. Keats, personal communication, June 11, 2010). This point is important, and there are numerous challenges regarding access both to ICT and Internet. According to Keats “The biggest challenge is getting technology in everybody's hands (…) We really are far behind in terms of bandwidth and that's the second biggest challenge (D. Keats, personal communication, June 11, 2010).

In the context of South Africa, the issue of inequality is particularly important. There exists a large population who do not have access to computers and internet, or the necessary skills for effective access. Further study is needed of 'invisible groups' (Wyatt, 2003) or non-user's of technology (Oudshoorn, & Pinch, 2005). Without critical attention it is also possible that only the already empowered population will benefit from developments in FLOSS and open content (Gurstein, 2011).

Issues of the digital divide in the context of FLOSS and open data are important to explore further. However, although the idea is often articulated that if access to Internet is there, technologies and the digital commons will contribute to development and empowerment, having access to the Internet, technology or FLOSS does not necessary imply participation and development. Citizens contribution and participation are crucial factors also. Access to technologies and Internet will not change much for the majority of people if there is no contribution or participation. As Keats put it: “I think there is a huge need to continue to raise awareness around the philosophical implications, and linking threats to our freedom in a digital age, to threats to our freedom in other areas because it seems silly to give up... to fight for getting back your freedom... only to have it taken away from you in the digital world, when you start using technology” (D. Keats, personal communication, June 11, 2010). There have been a lot of projects related to technology and ICT for development, however, according to Maharajh: “until dealing with the issue of inequitable distribution of incomes, to say ICT for development would do something different is a lot of words but not really concrete things” (R. Maharajh, personal communication, May 5, 2010). It appears that the potential of FLOSS and the digital commons is largely dependent on participation and contribution.

Conclusion

This field note explored a perceived gap between the promise and practise of the FLOSS policy in South Africa. Based on findings from the fieldwork we argued that diverging interpretations and meanings of openness are interrelated with local context and making of policies. We suggest that getting a FLOSS policy is not enough, but that the politics of implementation and participation of communities matter. It is questionable who will benefit from open policies and it is crucial to explore further questions regarding access, empowerment, inequalities and freedom.

References

Baszanger, I., & Dodier, N. (1997). Ethnography, Relating the part to the Whole. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 9 –34). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Byrne, B. (2003). Qualitative Interviewing. In C. Searle (Ed.), Social Research Methods . London: Sage.

FOSS. (2006). Policy on Free and Open Source Software for South African Government. Office of the Government CIO Department of Public Service and Administration. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://www.sita.co.za/FOSS/foss_policy_2007.pdf

Gurstein, M. (2011). Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone? First Monday , 16 (2).

Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2005). How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2007). User-Technology relationship: Some recent development. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. E. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (third ed., pp. 541–566). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Thomas, G., & Wyatt, S. (2000). Access is not the only problem: using and controlling the Internet. Technology and In/equality: Questioning the Information Society . London: Routledge.

Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-Users Also Matter: The Construction of Users and Non-Users of the Internet. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology (pp. 67–80). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Footnotes

[1]Both Free Open Source Software (FOSS) and Free/ Libre/ Open Source Software (FLOSS) are used. In this paper the notion of FLOSS will be used because it also put emphasis on the Libre/Freedom aspect of the movement of Open Source Software which is fundamental in order to understand the aim of initiatives of open government data, access to knowledge, sharing, collaboration and participation in a digital commons.

[2]“On 22 February 2007 the South African Cabinet approved a policy and strategy for the adoption in government of free and open source software, or ‘FOSS’. In summary, all new software developed for or by the government will, in future, be based on open standards, and government will migrate all current software to FOSS” ( Schonwetter, Ncube and Chetty, 2009).

1. Philipp Schmidt	Open Courseware Project at UWC and researcher UNU-Merit	16.04.10 Cape Town
2. Marlon Parker	Founder Reconstructing Living Lab and lecturer Cape Tech University	21.04.10 Cape Town
3. Paul Scott	Director AVOIR and manager FSIU (Free Software Innovation Unit), UWC	29.04.10 Cape Town
4. Rasigan Maharajh	Director IERI (Institute for Economic Research on Innovation) and FTISA (Freedom to Innovate South Africa)	04.05.10 Pretoria
5. Thomas Fogwill	Researcher at Meraka Research Institute at CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research)	05.05.10 Pretoria
6. Marlion Herselman	Director, Living Lab team Meraka	Group-interview, 05.05.10 Pretoria
7. Mario Marais	Living Lab team Meraka	Group-interview, 05.05.10
8. Calvyn Van Zyl	IBM Open Computing and Linux	06.05.10 Johannesburg
9. William Blankey	Director , Knowledge systems, HSRC (Human Science Research Council)	Group-interview, 13.05.10 Cape Town
10. Irma Wilkinson	Researcher Knowledge systems, HSRC	Group-interview, 13.05.10
11. Neo Molotja	Researcher Knowledge systems, HSRC	Group-interview, 13.05.10
12. David Duarte	lead Creative Commons South Africa	Phone-interview, 14.05.10
13. Andrew Rens	IP fellow Shuttleworth foundation and lead Creative Commons South Africa	Interview and seminar 21.05.10 Cape Town
14. Marius Bock	Manager IBM South Africa	23.05.10, Cape Town
15. Calvyn Van Zyl	IBM South Africa	23.05.10, Cape Town
16. Eve Gray	Researcher at the University of Cape Town and runs a publishing strategy consultancy	24.05.10, Cape Town
17. Nhlanla Mabaso	CNS at Wits University, director of FTISA, was coordinator of FOSSFA, Meraka's Open Source Centre	Phone-interview, 27.05.10,
18. Dirk Visser	Open Innovation Studio Cape Town	28.05.10, Cape Town
19. Kerryn Mckay	Director African Commons Projects	Skype-interview, 01.06.10, Johannesburg
20.Derek Keats	Deputy Vice Chancellor Knowledge and Information Management Wits University, founder AVOIR at UWC	Skype-interview, 11.06.10

Exploring the politics of Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) in the context of contemporary South Africa; how are open policies implemented in practice?

Asne Handlykken

Introduction