Friday, February 1, 2008

The Open Source Debate at Laval

There is currently a huge debate within the community of Université Laval and, interestingly enough, the topic of Open Source is an important factor that is discussed by all players. As the debate evolves, we can easily see that a huge controversy is beginning.

Firstly, there was the proposal to raise technological fees from $1.65/credits to $5.00/credits. The university said the objective was to modernize Université Laval's information systems in order to improve the quality of distance learning and in class courses, practicum management, the developing systems of collaborative networks and the diffusion of pedagogical resources. This increase was known at the very last minute and the CADEUL, surprised, asked the university to survey students on whether they would agree or not with this decision. Such a demand was in accordance with previous arrangements made between the CADEUL and the university.

Suddenly, the university asked them to answer the survey within a five-day period. Since it was pushed to do so, the university sent to the students an email informing them that a consultative referendum had been called. And so the students were surprised. From then on, they had to understand the whole debate, which was not an easy task in fact. Indeed, there were many elements to consider before actually understanding what the debate really was. One of the arguments was to use an open-source software instead of building a privately owned system, which, as stated in my previous article, is costless and way more effective. On the other hand, the university firmly stated that we really needed the money to proceed.

The students whether did not feel any need for such an improvement or thought that an open source might have been a better choice. Indeed, amongst the impressive 12% of students who voted, 80% said they were against increasing technological fees. Nevertheless, the referendum was simply a student consultation. Therefore, the university was not forced to listen to the students.

The university having decided to implement the new fees anyway, it is surprising not to have seen any general strike movement rising given the high interest demonstrated by the students. My opinion is that students did not feel confident enough to support such an initiative when the university surveyed them. However, they now probably do not feel confident enough to go against it. Indeed, the information that has recently been sent by the university makes it very hard to understand the actual debate. Here's what they had to say: "Des étudiants ont porté à l’attention de la Direction de l’Université la possibilité d’utiliser un logiciel libre, donc moins coûteux, que la solution prévue. Le logiciel en question [Pixel, which is entirely built by science students] héberge présentement 200 sites de cours à la Faculté des sciences et de génie, sur les 1 600 hébergés par l’institution [...]. Cela dit, certains éléments du prototype [Pixel] seront utilisés dans l’environnement ENA [what the university proposes], lequel fait aussi appel, dans ses composantes, à des logiciels libres".

What is hard to understand is their claim that an open-source would cost more than the partially-privatized system they defend. Moreover, we should wonder what part of the project is actually given to open source; why can't an open-source meet the needs for the community while their system could; and why did they survey the students so quickly, without making sure that they actually understand the debate. These questions are the many missing pieces to the puzzle, and what I feel is that the university does not want the students to get too much involved into the university affairs.

3 comments:

Sim said...

Pier-Luc, open source is free but Microsoft has the right to buy the people and pack the open code... Look for StarOffice, once free, now owned by Sun Microsystems. Mozilla Firefox was free and open... but now it must make money somewhere. And others copied the open code to improve their web browser.

Pierre-Luc Marchand said...

This is not true. Microsoft does not have the right to take the technology and sell it. An open source system is said to be free of access only for non-profit organizations (if you would have listened in Mark's class you would know this). Can you tell me WHO copied their technology? If you were Microsoft, how would you buy Firefox? or Google? At this very moment, Microsoft is trying to buy Yahoo!, not Google; this is merely because it just cannot buy Google, which is an open source system. You have no source for your arguments other than your delusion that anything good is impossible. Moreover, Microsoft cannot keep up with the updates an open source software proposes. What do you think people will buy? Microsoft Office for a price approximating $150 or a totally free system available on the Internet with equal or superior performance? Even if Microsoft would be able to steal the open source technology, I would still choose the free software.

Pierre-Luc Marchand said...

Moreover, by saying that Mozilla Firefox must now make money somehow, you prove that you do not understand how an open source software is created.

Businesses usually initiate those merely because they can save a lot of money and time in doing so. These losts are usually in Billions of dollars for big businesses. Believe me, there has been much money saved thanks to firefox!